Potts v. State

52 S.E.2d 575, 78 Ga. App. 799, 1949 Ga. App. LEXIS 982
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMarch 18, 1949
Docket32354.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 S.E.2d 575 (Potts 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
Potts v. State, 52 S.E.2d 575, 78 Ga. App. 799, 1949 Ga. App. LEXIS 982 (Ga. Ct. App. 1949).

Opinion

Townsend, J.

1. (a) For a conviction of perjury, the falsity of t'he testimony of the defendant must be established by two witnesses or one witness and corroborating circumstances. See Code, § 38-121.

(b) In the instant case, the falsity of the testimony of the defendant was established by two witnesses. One was Robert Tye Noland, the witness *800 who swore that the defendant was not in Dalton with him at a particular time; and the other was the witness who swore that Robert Tye Noland, at the particular time in question, was at her home in Gilmer County, 35 or 40 miles from Dalton, engaged in robbing her. The result of the testimony of each of these two witnesses is the positive contradiction of the testimony of the defendant as to the whereabouts of Robert Tye Noland at a particular time.

Decided March 18, 1949.

2. On the trial of a defendant charged with perjury, the judge should instruct the jury that, before they would be authorized to convict, the charge must be established by the testimony of two witnesses, or by one witness and corroborating circumstances. However, the failure so to charge in the instant case was harmless to the defendant, as he introduced no evidence, and two witnesses for the State testified positively in contradiction to the testimony alleged to be false, which he gave on the committal trial of Robert Tye Noland, and for which he was indicted in the instant case. See Manning v. State, 33 Ga. A/pp. 610 (6) (127 S. E. 475); Oxford v. State, 40 Ga. App. 511 (4) (150 S. E. 466).

3. The judgment of the trial court overruling the motion for a new trial as amended is without error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre, P. J., and Gardner, J., concur. *801 H. L. Buffington, Watkins Edwards, Howell Brooke, for plaintiff in error. James T. Manning, Solicitor-General, contra.

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

Related

In the Interest of C. H.
585 S.E.2d 921 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 S.E.2d 575, 78 Ga. App. 799, 1949 Ga. App. LEXIS 982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potts-v-state-gactapp-1949.