Raffield v. State
This text of 152 S.E. 604 (Raffield 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.
Opinion
1. The bill of exceptions contains no assignment of error upon the exceptions pendente lite or upon the ruling complained of therein. Therefore, under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, the exceptions pendente lite can not be considered.
2. The excerpt from the charge, excepted to, when considered in the light of the entire charge, shows no error.
3. The failure of the court to instruct the jury upon the law of voluntary manslaughter was not error. The evidence did not require such a charge, and if the charge were authorized solely by the defendant’s statement, the failure so to charge was not error, in the absence of a timely and appropriate written request.
4. The grounds of the motion for a new trial, complaining of the admission of certain evidence, show no harmful error.
5. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
152 S.E. 604, 41 Ga. App. 300, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raffield-v-state-gactapp-1930.