Teems v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Teems v. State

130 S.E. 216, 34 Ga. App. 594, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 436

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 11, 1925

Docket16707

StatusPublished

This text of 130 S.E. 216 (Teems 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

Teems v. State, 130 S.E. 216, 34 Ga. App. 594, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 436 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Bl.oodworth, J.

1. The only special ground of the motion for a new trial alleges that the court erred in overruling a motion [595]*595to continue the case on account of the absence of a witness. The motion to continue shows that this witness was present when the difficulty arose in which a person was killed and out of which grew the indictment against the defendant; that the witness had moved from Georgia and was living in Alabama, and that on cross-examination the defendant swore: “I don’t know what I can prove by him. He never told me, but he will swear the truth. I have never talked to him. He is over in Alabama. I have been in jail two months. I got out this subpoena since court started this week.” Hnder this showing we can not say that the judge abused his discretion in refusing to continue the ease. Smith v. State, 21 Ga. App. 237 (1) (94 S. E. 265). Moreover, the-motion to continue was incomplete. There is no statement from the defendant “that he expects he will be able to procure the testimony of the witness at the next term of court; and that the application is not made for the purpose of delay, but to enable the-party to procure the testimony of the absent witness.” See Penal Code (1910), § 987; Jones v. State, 128 Ga. 23 (1) (57 S. E. 313); Long v. State, 25 Ga. App. 22 (2) (102 S. E. 359).

2. There is evidence to support the verdict of voluntary manslaughter.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bl.oodworth, J.

1. The only special ground of the motion for a new trial alleges that the court erred in overruling a motion [595]*595to continue the case on account of the absence of a witness. The motion to continue shows that this witness was present when the difficulty arose in which a person was killed and out of which grew the indictment against the defendant; that the witness had moved from Georgia and was living in Alabama, and that on cross-examination the defendant swore: “I don’t know what I can prove by him. He never told me, but he will swear the truth. I have never talked to him. He is over in Alabama. I have been in jail two months. I got out this subpoena since court started this week.” Hnder this showing we can not say that the judge abused his discretion in refusing to continue the ease. Smith v. State, 21 Ga. App. 237 (1) (94 S. E. 265). Moreover, the-motion to continue was incomplete. There is no statement from the defendant “that he expects he will be able to procure the testimony of the witness at the next term of court; and that the application is not made for the purpose of delay, but to enable the-party to procure the testimony of the absent witness.” See Penal Code (1910), § 987; Jones v. State, 128 Ga. 23 (1) (57 S. E. 313); Long v. State, 25 Ga. App. 22 (2) (102 S. E. 359).

2. There is evidence to support the verdict of voluntary manslaughter.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 S.E. 216, 34 Ga. App. 594, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teems-v-state-gactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack