Thomas v. State
Opinion
The defendant and his mother were convicted of the offense of incest. The defendant appealed complaining of the overruling of his motion for a new trial on general and special grounds.
1. The evidence was amply sufficient to authorize the verdict.
2. In the absence of a written request, there was no error in failing to charge that a witness could be impeached by contradictory evidence or testimony. See Greeson v. State, 138 Ga. App. 572 (226 SE2d 769).
3. Error was enumerated upon a certain charge given by the court. The sole and only argument presented on this ground was the following: "The charge set forth in ground 5 of the motion for new trial was an error as it was confusing to the jury.” Nowhere in his brief and argument does it appear wherein the appellant contends the charge [564]*564was confusing to the jury. It is not confusing on its face, and appears to be a correct charge under the evidence and circumstances in this case.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
231 S.E.2d 531 (Thomas v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.