Style v. State

165 S.E. 7, 175 Ga. 95, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 196
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 12, 1932
DocketNo. 9117
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 165 S.E. 7 (Style 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
Style v. State, 165 S.E. 7, 175 Ga. 95, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 196 (Ga. 1932).

Opinion

Beck, P. J.

Willie Style was indicted for the offense of murder, and upon the trial of the case the jury returned a verdict of guilty, with a recommendation. The only eye-witness to the actual killing was a little boy, eight years old, a brother of the deceased, who was introduced as a witness for the State. It is contended that this child was incompetent to testify on account of his tender years, and did not understand the nature and sanctity of an oath.

“Although a child eight years old, on a preliminary examination had for the purpose of testing his competency as a witness, stated that he did not know what an oath was, yet where he also stated that he knew what it was 'to go up in the court-house and swear you have to tell the truth,’ that the' law would punish him if he told a story, and that he was bound to tell the truth when sworn, and the examination as a whole disclosed such a degree of intelligence and knowledge on the child’s part as to satisfy the judge of his competency, this court will not reverse a ruling permitting the child to be examined as a witness concerning the facts in issue.” Minton v. State, 99 Ga. 254 (25 S. E. 626). See also Beebee v. State, 124 Ga. 775 (53 S. E. 99). Under the rulings in these cases, the court did not err in allowing the child, after examination to test his competency, to testify in the case.

There is no merit in the ground of the motion for a new trial wherein it is contended that the court abused its discretion in allowing the child to testify before the jury, for the reason that the court said: “I think he could testify. Let the jury determine what credit, if any, they will give to this testimony.”

The evidence authorized the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

McKee v. State
308 S.E.2d 574 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1983)
Mackler v. State
298 S.E.2d 589 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)
Smith v. State
277 S.E.2d 53 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1981)
Stonaker v. State
213 S.E.2d 506 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1975)
Thurmond v. State
138 S.E.2d 372 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1964)
Jones v. State
132 S.E.2d 648 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1963)
Russell v. State
65 S.E.2d 264 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1951)
Young v. State
35 S.E.2d 321 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1945)
Ellison v. State
28 S.E.2d 453 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1943)
Gordon v. State
198 S.E. 678 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
165 S.E. 7, 175 Ga. 95, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/style-v-state-ga-1932.