Smith v. State
158 S.E. 770, 43 Ga. App. 353, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 356
Opinion
1. The court did not err in refusing the continuance asked for by the defendant. “In all cases the party making an application for a continuance must show that he has used due diligence.” Civil Code (1910), § 5721. In this ease such diligence on the part of the accused was not shown.
2. The excerpts from the charge of the court on the subject of “flight” were not erroneous for any reason assigned.
3. 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
Smith v. State, 158 S.E. 770, 43 Ga. App. 353, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 356 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).
158 S.E. 770 (Smith v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Young v. State
206 S.E.2d 536 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1974)
Wilson v. State
10 S.E.2d 861 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)