Pyles v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pyles v. State

78 S.E. 144, 12 Ga. App. 667, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 696

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 6, 1913

Docket4689

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 78 S.E. 144 (Pyles 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

Pyles v. State, 78 S.E. 144, 12 Ga. App. 667, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 696 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Pottle, J.

1. An instruction to the jury in a criminal case, that, where the defense of alibi is relied on, the burden is on the accused to establish this defense “to your satisfaction,” is not erroneous, when, in immediate connection therewith, the jury are instructed to consider the testimony in reference to the special defense along with all of the evidence in the case, and that, in order to convict, the jury must be satisfied of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, after considering all of the evidence and the prisoner’s statement. The omission of the word “reasonable” before satisfaction is not reversible error. See Ledford v. State, 75 Ga. 856; Harris v. State, 120 Ga. 167 (47 S. E. 520). In Harrison v. State, 83 Ga. 130 (9 S. E. 542), the Supreme Court has laid down the rule touching alibi which it would be well for the trial judges to follow; but the charge in the present case is not erroneous when tested by that decision. Nor is the instruction here complained of subject to the objections pointed out in Raysor v. State, 132 Ga. 237 (63 S. E. 786).

2. The evidence fully authorized the verdict. Judgment affirmed.

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

Pottle, J.

1. An instruction to the jury in a criminal case, that, where the defense of alibi is relied on, the burden is on the accused to establish this defense “to your satisfaction,” is not erroneous, when, in immediate connection therewith, the jury are instructed to consider the testimony in reference to the special defense along with all of the evidence in the case, and that, in order to convict, the jury must be satisfied of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, after considering all of the evidence and the prisoner’s statement. The omission of the word “reasonable” before satisfaction is not reversible error. See Ledford v. State, 75 Ga. 856; Harris v. State, 120 Ga. 167 (47 S. E. 520). In Harrison v. State, 83 Ga. 130 (9 S. E. 542), the Supreme Court has laid down the rule touching alibi which it would be well for the trial judges to follow; but the charge in the present case is not erroneous when tested by that decision. Nor is the instruction here complained of subject to the objections pointed out in Raysor v. State, 132 Ga. 237 (63 S. E. 786).

2. The evidence fully authorized the verdict. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 S.E. 144, 12 Ga. App. 667, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pyles-v-state-gactapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack