Parker v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Parker v. State

162 S.E. 812, 174 Ga. 453, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 68

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 19, 1932

DocketNo. 8267

StatusPublished

This text of 162 S.E. 812 (Parker v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Parker v. State, 162 S.E. 812, 174 Ga. 453, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 68 (Ga. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This case came on for a hearing before a full bench consisting of six Justices. One of the questions was whether the judge erred in charging upon the law of confessions, and another whether he violated § 1058 of the Penal Code by expressing an opinion upon the evidence. On these questions Hill, Gilbert, and Hines, JJ., were in favor of affirmance; and Russell, C. J., Beck, P. J., and Atkinson, J., were in favor of reversal. Therefore the judgment of the court below is affirmed by operation of law. As to the other questions raised, this court is of the opinion that no error was committed.

Judgment affirmed by operation of law.

J. Mach Barnes, Blalock & Blalock, and Parker & Parker, for plaintiff in error. A. B. Spence, solicitor-general, and John W. Bennett, contra.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This case came on for a hearing before a full bench consisting of six Justices. One of the questions was whether the judge erred in charging upon the law of confessions, and another whether he violated § 1058 of the Penal Code by expressing an opinion upon the evidence. On these questions Hill, Gilbert, and Hines, JJ., were in favor of affirmance; and Russell, C. J., Beck, P. J., and Atkinson, J., were in favor of reversal. Therefore the judgment of the court below is affirmed by operation of law. As to the other questions raised, this court is of the opinion that no error was committed.

Judgment affirmed by operation of law.

J. Mach Barnes, Blalock & Blalock, and Parker & Parker, for plaintiff in error. A. B. Spence, solicitor-general, and John W. Bennett, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 S.E. 812, 174 Ga. 453, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-state-ga-1932.