Stokes v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Stokes v. State

112 S.E. 293, 28 Ga. App. 555, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 684

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 9, 1922

Docket13389

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 S.E. 293 (Stokes 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

Stokes v. State, 112 S.E. 293, 28 Ga. App. 555, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 684 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. The indictment under which the plaintiff in error was convicted was against him and another, and they were jointly tried. The special ground of the motion for a new trial alleges that after charging on the statements of the defendants, the court erred by adding the following,: “ remembering [556]*556that they are not under oath nor subject to the penalty incident to a sworn witness.” This was not error. In Teasley v. State, 105 Ga. 842 (1) (2 S. E. 335), the Supreme Court said: “Under previous rulings of this court, it is not error on the part of the presiding judge after having properly charged the jury in reference to the prisoner’s statement, after instructing the jury that they may believe that statement in whole or in part to the exclusion of the sworn testimony, to add, ‘ remembering it is not under oath and does not subject him to the penalty incident to a sworn witness;” citing Poppell v. State, 71 Ga. 276; Klug v. State, 77 Ga. 734. See also Harrison v. State, ante, 554 (112 S. E. 293).

2. There was some evidence to support the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, and “this court is absolutely without authority to control the judgment of the trial court.” Bradham v. State, 21 Ga. App, 510 (94 S. E. 618), and citations.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. The indictment under which the plaintiff in error was convicted was against him and another, and they were jointly tried. The special ground of the motion for a new trial alleges that after charging on the statements of the defendants, the court erred by adding the following,: “ remembering [556]*556that they are not under oath nor subject to the penalty incident to a sworn witness.” This was not error. In Teasley v. State, 105 Ga. 842 (1) (2 S. E. 335), the Supreme Court said: “Under previous rulings of this court, it is not error on the part of the presiding judge after having properly charged the jury in reference to the prisoner’s statement, after instructing the jury that they may believe that statement in whole or in part to the exclusion of the sworn testimony, to add, ‘ remembering it is not under oath and does not subject him to the penalty incident to a sworn witness;” citing Poppell v. State, 71 Ga. 276; Klug v. State, 77 Ga. 734. See also Harrison v. State, ante, 554 (112 S. E. 293).

2. There was some evidence to support the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, and “this court is absolutely without authority to control the judgment of the trial court.” Bradham v. State, 21 Ga. App, 510 (94 S. E. 618), and citations.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 S.E. 293, 28 Ga. App. 555, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stokes-v-state-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack