Redd v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Redd v. State

111 S.E. 685, 28 Ga. App. 483, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 632

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 13, 1922

Docket13287

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 111 S.E. 685 (Redd 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

Redd v. State, 111 S.E. 685, 28 Ga. App. 483, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 632 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. Exceptions to prejudicial remarks made by the court upon the trial of a criminal case, or like remarks made by the solicitor-general in his argument to the jury, cannot be considered by this court, unless a motion for a mistrial based thereon was made and denied. Stapleton v. State, 19 Ga. App. 36 (13) (90 S. E. 1029); Gilbert v. State, 25 Ga. App. 384 (2) (103 S. E. 694). Under this ruling, grounds .5 and 6 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial raise no question for determination by this court.

2. None of the remaining grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial shows material error.

3. There'was some slight evidence which authorized the verdict, and, the finding of the jury having been approved by the trial judge, this court is without authority to interfere. Lacount v. State, 25 Ga. App. 767 (104 S. E. 920).

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.

1. Exceptions to prejudicial remarks made by the court upon the trial of a criminal case, or like remarks made by the solicitor-general in his argument to the jury, cannot be considered by this court, unless a motion for a mistrial based thereon was made and denied. Stapleton v. State, 19 Ga. App. 36 (13) (90 S. E. 1029); Gilbert v. State, 25 Ga. App. 384 (2) (103 S. E. 694). Under this ruling, grounds .5 and 6 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial raise no question for determination by this court.

2. None of the remaining grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial shows material error.

3. There'was some slight evidence which authorized the verdict, and, the finding of the jury having been approved by the trial judge, this court is without authority to interfere. Lacount v. State, 25 Ga. App. 767 (104 S. E. 920).

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.E. 685, 28 Ga. App. 483, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/redd-v-state-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack