Thomas v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Thomas v. State

8 S.E.2d 718, 62 Ga. App. 494, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 310

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 9, 1940

Docket28188.

StatusPublished

This text of 8 S.E.2d 718 (Thomas 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

Thomas v. State, 8 S.E.2d 718, 62 Ga. App. 494, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 310 (Ga. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Guerry, J.

1. Where the evidence given in a committing court has been reduced to writing under the direction of the magistrate, properly identified, and is offered in evidence to impeach the witness, it is error not to admit the evidence, and without the requirement that the foundation therefor should have been previously laid. Cox v. Prater, 67 6a. 588, 593. However, such error will not require the grant of a new trial where the alleged contradictory statement is not material to the main issue, and where it further appears, as in this case, that the remaining evidence of the witness whom it was sought to impeach was amply corroborated by the other eye-witnesses, so that the jury was authorized, on the evidence taken as a whole, to return a verdict of manslaughter.

2. The remaining assignments of error are without merit. The evidence supported the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and. MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Guerry, J.

1. Where the evidence given in a committing court has been reduced to writing under the direction of the magistrate, properly identified, and is offered in evidence to impeach the witness, it is error not to admit the evidence, and without the requirement that the foundation therefor should have been previously laid. Cox v. Prater, 67 6a. 588, 593. However, such error will not require the grant of a new trial where the alleged contradictory statement is not material to the main issue, and where it further appears, as in this case, that the remaining evidence of the witness whom it was sought to impeach was amply corroborated by the other eye-witnesses, so that the jury was authorized, on the evidence taken as a whole, to return a verdict of manslaughter.

2. The remaining assignments of error are without merit. The evidence supported the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and. MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 S.E.2d 718, 62 Ga. App. 494, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-state-gactapp-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack