Pettyfoot v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pettyfoot v. State

65 S.E. 1074, 7 Ga. App. 26, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 518

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 9, 1909

Docket2113

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 65 S.E. 1074 (Pettyfoot v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pettyfoot v. State, 65 S.E. 1074, 7 Ga. App. 26, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 518 (Ga. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, J.

Under the law of this State (Civil Code, §4334, Penal Code, § 1032) it is reversible error for a judge of the superior court, in his charge to the jury, either to express or intimate an opinion as to what has or has not been proved. To designate a given witness as one relied upon by the State, and "who claims to have bought it” (referring to intoxicating liquor), is at least an intimation of an opinion as to what has been testified. Edwards v. State, 4 Ga. App. 167 (60 S. E. 1033), and cit. Eor the judge in his charge to state to the jury what any witness has testified is a violation of the rule prescribed by the statute. Judgment reversed.

Argued October 6, Decided November 9, 1909. H. A. King, Sidney D. Dell, for plaintiff in error. J. H. Thomas, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Russell, J.

Under the law of this State (Civil Code, §4334, Penal Code, § 1032) it is reversible error for a judge of the superior court, in his charge to the jury, either to express or intimate an opinion as to what has or has not been proved. To designate a given witness as one relied upon by the State, and "who claims to have bought it” (referring to intoxicating liquor), is at least an intimation of an opinion as to what has been testified. Edwards v. State, 4 Ga. App. 167 (60 S. E. 1033), and cit. Eor the judge in his charge to state to the jury what any witness has testified is a violation of the rule prescribed by the statute. Judgment reversed.

Argued October 6, Decided November 9, 1909. H. A. King, Sidney D. Dell, for plaintiff in error. J. H. Thomas, solicitor-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 S.E. 1074, 7 Ga. App. 26, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pettyfoot-v-state-gactapp-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack