Thompson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Thompson v. State

123 S.E. 32, 32 Ga. App. 330, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 371

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 13, 1924

Docket15411

StatusPublished

This text of 123 S.E. 32 (Thompson 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

Thompson v. State, 123 S.E. 32, 32 Ga. App. 330, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 371 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodwobtii, J.

1. “Where the court provisionally admits evidence on the promise of the solicitor-general that he will subsequently connect the same and show its relevancy, it is not incumbent on the judge, of his own motion, to determine whether such promise has been kept and to exclude the testimony, without a request to that effect by the defendant. ” Thomas v. State, 129 Ga. 419 (59 S. E. 246). See Sasser v. State, 129 Ga. 543 (3) (59 S. E. 255), and cases cited (p. 546); Quinn v. State, 22 Ga. App. 634 (2) (97 S. E. 84), and cases cited. The principle announced in the foregoing cases disposes of ground 2 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial.

2. There is some evidence to support the verdict, and where this is true, and no error of law is shown to have been committed during the trial, this court is powerless to interfere.

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

Bloodwobtii, J.

1. “Where the court provisionally admits evidence on the promise of the solicitor-general that he will subsequently connect the same and show its relevancy, it is not incumbent on the judge, of his own motion, to determine whether such promise has been kept and to exclude the testimony, without a request to that effect by the defendant. ” Thomas v. State, 129 Ga. 419 (59 S. E. 246). See Sasser v. State, 129 Ga. 543 (3) (59 S. E. 255), and cases cited (p. 546); Quinn v. State, 22 Ga. App. 634 (2) (97 S. E. 84), and cases cited. The principle announced in the foregoing cases disposes of ground 2 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial.

2. There is some evidence to support the verdict, and where this is true, and no error of law is shown to have been committed during the trial, this court is powerless to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 S.E. 32, 32 Ga. App. 330, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-state-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack