Ray v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ray v. State

113 S.E. 105, 28 Ga. App. 758, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 841

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 11, 1922

Docket13645

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 113 S.E. 105 (Ray 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

Ray v. State, 113 S.E. 105, 28 Ga. App. 758, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 841 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

Bay was convicted of the larceny of an automobile. In his motion for a new trial he complained of the admission of an indictment which charged a similar offense and upon which he had been convicted, his ground of objection being that the offense, set out in the indictment was a separate and distinct offense and was in no way connected with the offense for which he was being tried, and that it placed his character in issue. Upon an examination of the evidence in this case, we hold that the admission of this indictment was not error. The use of it by the jury was properly restricted by the judge in his charge to the jury. See Lee v. State, 8 Ga. App. 413 (69 S. E. 310); Bates v. State, 18 Ga. App. 718 (90 S. E. 481); Frank v. State, 141 Ga. 243 (80 S. E. 1016); Martin v. State, 10 Ga. App. 795 (2) (74 S. E. 304), and cases cited.

Upon conflicting evidence the jury were amply authorized to return a verdict of guilty. None of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial show reversible error. It was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

Bay was convicted of the larceny of an automobile. In his motion for a new trial he complained of the admission of an indictment which charged a similar offense and upon which he had been convicted, his ground of objection being that the offense, set out in the indictment was a separate and distinct offense and was in no way connected with the offense for which he was being tried, and that it placed his character in issue. Upon an examination of the evidence in this case, we hold that the admission of this indictment was not error. The use of it by the jury was properly restricted by the judge in his charge to the jury. See Lee v. State, 8 Ga. App. 413 (69 S. E. 310); Bates v. State, 18 Ga. App. 718 (90 S. E. 481); Frank v. State, 141 Ga. 243 (80 S. E. 1016); Martin v. State, 10 Ga. App. 795 (2) (74 S. E. 304), and cases cited.

Upon conflicting evidence the jury were amply authorized to return a verdict of guilty. None of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial show reversible error. It was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 S.E. 105, 28 Ga. App. 758, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ray-v-state-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack