Stallings v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Stallings v. State

70 S.E. 1015, 136 Ga. 131, 1911 Ga. LEXIS 439

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 12, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 70 S.E. 1015 (Stallings v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stallings v. State, 70 S.E. 1015, 136 Ga. 131, 1911 Ga. LEXIS 439 (Ga. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

1. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the judge to give in charge to the jury the provisions of section 42 of the Penal Code of 1910, defining principals in the first and second degrees; also to charge them on the law of conspiracy to commit the crime of murder; and the charge complained of on the latter subject was not open to the criticism that it was argumentative..

2. Where one of four defendants jointly indicted for murder was on separate trial, it was not error for the court to refuse to require one of the codefendants who had been previously tried and convicted, and who had made a motion for new trial, which was then pending, to answer a question tending to criminate himself.

3. The alleged newly discovered evidence was merely impeaching in character, and not sufficient to require the grant of a new trial.

4. The verdict was supported by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justicse concur.

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

Atkinson, J.

1. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the judge to give in charge to the jury the provisions of section 42 of the Penal Code of 1910, defining principals in the first and second degrees; also to charge them on the law of conspiracy to commit the crime of murder; and the charge complained of on the latter subject was not open to the criticism that it was argumentative..

2. Where one of four defendants jointly indicted for murder was on separate trial, it was not error for the court to refuse to require one of the codefendants who had been previously tried and convicted, and who had made a motion for new trial, which was then pending, to answer a question tending to criminate himself.

3. The alleged newly discovered evidence was merely impeaching in character, and not sufficient to require the grant of a new trial.

4. The verdict was supported by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justicse concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 S.E. 1015, 136 Ga. 131, 1911 Ga. LEXIS 439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stallings-v-state-ga-1911.

Opinion

4. The verdict was supported by the evidence.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack