Roberts v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Roberts v. State

85 S.E. 285, 16 Ga. App. 315, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 608

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 7, 1915

Docket6328

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 85 S.E. 285 (Roberts 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

Roberts v. State, 85 S.E. 285, 16 Ga. App. 315, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 608 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Bboyles, J.

1. The evidence strongly authorized the yerdict.

2. The excerpts from the charge of the court which are complained of may, while standing alone, be subject to criticism, but, when considered in connection with the charge as a whole and in the light of the evidence in the case, they contain no reversible error.

3. The direct evidence being in itself sufficient to authorize the conviction of the accused, the failure of the court to charge upon circumstantial evidence, in the absence of a timely written request to do so, if error, was harmless.

4. The exception that the State’s contentions were unduly stressed is not so presented as to submit anything for the consideration of this court, but would require a careful scrutiny and analysis of the entire charge of the court, and the language to which the exception is taken is not embodied in the motion for a new trial as required by the decisions of the Supreme Court and of this court. Judgment affirmed.

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

Bboyles, J.

1. The evidence strongly authorized the yerdict.

2. The excerpts from the charge of the court which are complained of may, while standing alone, be subject to criticism, but, when considered in connection with the charge as a whole and in the light of the evidence in the case, they contain no reversible error.

3. The direct evidence being in itself sufficient to authorize the conviction of the accused, the failure of the court to charge upon circumstantial evidence, in the absence of a timely written request to do so, if error, was harmless.

4. The exception that the State’s contentions were unduly stressed is not so presented as to submit anything for the consideration of this court, but would require a careful scrutiny and analysis of the entire charge of the court, and the language to which the exception is taken is not embodied in the motion for a new trial as required by the decisions of the Supreme Court and of this court. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 S.E. 285, 16 Ga. App. 315, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-state-gactapp-1915.

Opinion

1. The evidence strongly authorized the yerdict.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack