Swearengen v. State

90 S.E. 653, 18 Ga. App. 763, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1249
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedNovember 16, 1916
Docket6774
StatusPublished

This text of 90 S.E. 653 (Swearengen 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
Swearengen v. State, 90 S.E. 653, 18 Ga. App. 763, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1249 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

1. The court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury to disregard certain statements made by counsel for the State, which amounted merely to deductions drawn from the evidence and were founded upon some facts in proof (Morgan v. State, 124 Ga. 442, 444, 52 S. E. 748), and in thereafter refusing to grant a mistrial based upon such refusal.

2. “The words ‘final trial’ in paragraph 10 of the declaration of rights (Civil Code of 1910, § 6366), providing that ‘no person shall be compelled to pay costs except after conviction on final trial,’ mean such trial in the court having original trial jurisdiction of the case as is the basis of the entry of judgment finally disposing of the action in such court, and do not apply to proceedings in an appellate court.” Swearengen v. State, 146 Ga. 3 (90 S. E. 283).

3. It is conceded by the plaintiff in error that there was evidence to support the verdict of guilty; and, there being no special assignment of error except that referred. to in the first paragraph above, the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Morgan v. State
52 S.E. 748 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)
Swearengen v. State
90 S.E. 283 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 S.E. 653, 18 Ga. App. 763, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swearengen-v-state-gactapp-1916.