Plunkett v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Plunkett v. State

89 S.E. 589, 18 Ga. App. 499, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1054

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 29, 1916

Docket7523

StatusPublished

This text of 89 S.E. 589 (Plunkett 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

Plunkett v. State, 89 S.E. 589, 18 Ga. App. 499, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1054 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Bkoyles, J.

1. The defendant through his counsel having consented to a suspension of this case until the grand jury could report to the court, and having consented to the reading of this report and of the general presentments of the grand jury in the presence of the trial jury, he will not be heard to complain that the court overruled his motion for a mistrial based upon the fact that immediately after reading the general presentments, the foreman of the grand jury made the following oral statement to the court: “I desire to congratulate the members of the grand jury, because of the excellent work they have done for the county. We have made considerable investigation as to the illegal sale of liquor, but we have not secured much evidence. We believe, though, that our efforts will have a good effect in checking the sale of whisky.” Under the foregoing facts, this oral statement of the foreman of the grand jury, even if prejudicial to the defendant, is no ground for a mistrial.

2. There is no merit in any of the other grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial; the evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Bkoyles, J.

1. The defendant through his counsel having consented to a suspension of this case until the grand jury could report to the court, and having consented to the reading of this report and of the general presentments of the grand jury in the presence of the trial jury, he will not be heard to complain that the court overruled his motion for a mistrial based upon the fact that immediately after reading the general presentments, the foreman of the grand jury made the following oral statement to the court: “I desire to congratulate the members of the grand jury, because of the excellent work they have done for the county. We have made considerable investigation as to the illegal sale of liquor, but we have not secured much evidence. We believe, though, that our efforts will have a good effect in checking the sale of whisky.” Under the foregoing facts, this oral statement of the foreman of the grand jury, even if prejudicial to the defendant, is no ground for a mistrial.

2. There is no merit in any of the other grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial; the evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.E. 589, 18 Ga. App. 499, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1054, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plunkett-v-state-gactapp-1916.