Quillian v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Quillian v. State

123 S.E. 913, 32 Ga. App. 540, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 535

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedAugust 8, 1924

Docket15683

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 S.E. 913 (Quillian 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

Quillian v. State, 123 S.E. 913, 32 Ga. App. 540, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 535 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Blood wobth, J.

1. The 3d ground of the motion for a new trial is not complete within itself, and therefore, cannot be considered by this court. It fails to show that the evidence of defendant’s witness, which was excluded, was material, or that its exclusion was harmful to the accused, or that the State’s witness sought to be impeached by the excluded testimony was a material witness, or that his evidence was harmful to the accused. To ascertain these facts reference to other portions of the record would be necessary. Cason v. Dickson, 30 Ga. App. 336 (118 S. E. 72); Sherman v. Stephens, 30 Ga. App. 509 (5), 510 (118 S. E. 567), and cases cited.

2. There is no merit in any of the other grounds of the motion for a new trial.

3. There was evidence to authorize the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur. George G. Glenn, John C. Mitchell, for plaintiff in error. , Joseph M. Lang, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Blood wobth, J.

1. The 3d ground of the motion for a new trial is not complete within itself, and therefore, cannot be considered by this court. It fails to show that the evidence of defendant’s witness, which was excluded, was material, or that its exclusion was harmful to the accused, or that the State’s witness sought to be impeached by the excluded testimony was a material witness, or that his evidence was harmful to the accused. To ascertain these facts reference to other portions of the record would be necessary. Cason v. Dickson, 30 Ga. App. 336 (118 S. E. 72); Sherman v. Stephens, 30 Ga. App. 509 (5), 510 (118 S. E. 567), and cases cited.

2. There is no merit in any of the other grounds of the motion for a new trial.

3. There was evidence to authorize the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur. George G. Glenn, John C. Mitchell, for plaintiff in error. , Joseph M. Lang, solicitor-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 S.E. 913, 32 Ga. App. 540, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quillian-v-state-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

3. There was evidence to authorize the verdict.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack