Strickland v. State

145 S.E. 539, 38 Ga. App. 689, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 401
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided November 13, 1928·No. 19190·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Broyles, O. J.

1. “The evidence in support- of the defense of alibi was not of such clear and strong probative value as to require from the court an instruction on the law of alibi, especially in the absence of a timely written request.” Bonner v. State, 26 Ga. App. 185 (6) (105 S. E. 863), and cit.

Under this ruling and the facts of the instant ease, the failure to charge the law of alibi was not error.

2. The remaining grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial (ground 6 being expressly abandoned in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error) show no cause for a reversal of the judgment.

3. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. Hubert F. Rawls, for plaintiff in error. A. B. Spence, solicitor-general, T. R. Gress, assistant attorney-general, contra.

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

Strickland v. State, 145 S.E. 539, 38 Ga. App. 689, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 401 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

145 S.E. 539 (Strickland v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cutts v. State
72 S.E.2d 565 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
Gordon v. State
177 S.E. 264 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)