Sorrow v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sorrow v. State

123 S.E. 914, 32 Ga. App. 504, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 511

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 15, 1924

Docket15641

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 123 S.E. 914 (Sorrow 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

Sorrow v. State, 123 S.E. 914, 32 Ga. App. 504, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 511 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

' 1. That the court while charging the jury entered, into a colloquy with the solicitor-general and counsel for the defendant and made statements which amounted to an expression of opinion as to the facts of the case does not require a reversal of the judgment below, since the court, immediately after making the statements complained of, explicitly instructed the jury not to consider them. Furthermore, counsel for the plaintiff in error, having failed to make a motion for a mistrial, cannot, after the conviction of his client, raise in a motion for a new trial the question as to the prejudicial nature of the remarks complained of. Perdue v. State, 135 Ga. 277 (69 S. E. 184).

2. The genei’al grounds of the motion for a new trial, not being referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, are treated as abandoned.

Judgment ■affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

' 1. That the court while charging the jury entered, into a colloquy with the solicitor-general and counsel for the defendant and made statements which amounted to an expression of opinion as to the facts of the case does not require a reversal of the judgment below, since the court, immediately after making the statements complained of, explicitly instructed the jury not to consider them. Furthermore, counsel for the plaintiff in error, having failed to make a motion for a mistrial, cannot, after the conviction of his client, raise in a motion for a new trial the question as to the prejudicial nature of the remarks complained of. Perdue v. State, 135 Ga. 277 (69 S. E. 184).

2. The genei’al grounds of the motion for a new trial, not being referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, are treated as abandoned.

Judgment ■affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 S.E. 914, 32 Ga. App. 504, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sorrow-v-state-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack