Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Solomon v. State

Solomon v. State

73 S.E. 623, 10 Ga. App. 469, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 569
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 30, 1912
Docket3902
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 73 S.E. 623 (Solomon 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
Solomon v. State, 73 S.E. 623, 10 Ga. App. 469, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 569 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Opinion

Russell, J.

1. There was no error in overruling the motion for a continuance, especially in view of the fact that it did not appear that the movant had subpoenaed the absent witness before he left the jurisdiction of the court, or had exercised any diligence in attempting to procure his presence.

2. Under the facts of this case, failure of the court to instruct the jury upon the subject of alibi was not reversible error, in the absence of a timely and appropriate written request. Smith v. State, 6 Ga. App. 577 (65 S. E. 300).

3. It is within the power and right of a jury to believe a witness, no matter what effort may have been made to impeach him, or what testimony has been presented for that purpose, and even though the witness be not corroborated. The credibility of witnesses is exclusively for the jury, and it is not error to instruct the jury that they may accept the explanation of a witness as to why he has made contradictory statements, even though it be not sustained by other facts or circumstances.

4. There was no error in allowing a witness to state, in explanation of his reason for leaving his former residence, that he did so because certain persons put him in fear of his personal safety. It not appearing that the defendant was one of the parties who were alleged to have intimidated the witness, the testimony could not have been prejudicial to the defendant, but would seem to have been rather to his advantage.

5. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the trial appears to have been free from error. Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Hayes v. State
309 S.E.2d 843 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1983)
Hester v. State
284 S.E.2d 659 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
Cartin v. Boles
270 S.E.2d 799 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1980)
Strong v. State
206 S.E.2d 461 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1974)
Wooster v. Boles
203 S.E.2d 745 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1974)
Griffin v. Ross
91 S.E.2d 815 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1956)
Sechler v. State
83 S.E.2d 847 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1954)
Fulmer v. State
39 S.E.2d 732 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1946)
Edwards v. State
189 S.E. 678 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1937)
Robinson v. State
182 S.E. 417 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Land v. State
180 S.E. 649 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Wright v. State
165 S.E. 326 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)
Hunter v. State
91 S.E. 927 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Bishop v. State
90 S.E. 369 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)
Ware v. State
89 S.E. 155 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)
Sutton v. State
88 S.E. 744 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)
Hagin v. Rogers
87 S.E. 769 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)
Rudulph v. State
85 S.E. 365 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1915)
Smith v. State
84 S.E. 159 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1915)
Rice v. City of Eatonton
83 S.E. 868 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
73 S.E. 623, 10 Ga. App. 469, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solomon-v-state-gactapp-1912.