Thornton v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Thornton v. State

134 S.E. 184, 35 Ga. App. 580, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 1001

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 13, 1926

Docket17412

StatusPublished

This text of 134 S.E. 184 (Thornton 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

Thornton v. State, 134 S.E. 184, 35 Ga. App. 580, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 1001 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. Certain testimony which consisted of several sentences was objected to en bloc, and at least a portion of it was admissible. “Where evidence is offered and objected to, and a portion thereof is admissible and a part objectionable, unless the illegal portion is specified and properly objected to, the whole will be admitted.” City of Atlanta v. Sciple, 19 Ga. App. 694 (3), 698 (92 S. E. 28), and cit. The foregoing ruling disposes of the first special ground of the motion for a new trial.

2. The fact that three of the jurors were members of the grand jury that found the bill against the accused is not cause for a new trial. The accused and his counsel, by the exercise of due diligence, could have discovered this fact before the jury was impaneled. Cason v. State, 23 Ga. App. 540 (5) (99 S. E. 61) ; Jones v. State, 95 Ga. 497 (20 S. E. 211).

3. The verdict was abundantly supported by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Lulce, J., concur. J. T. Sisk, for plaintiff in error. A. S. Skelton, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. Certain testimony which consisted of several sentences was objected to en bloc, and at least a portion of it was admissible. “Where evidence is offered and objected to, and a portion thereof is admissible and a part objectionable, unless the illegal portion is specified and properly objected to, the whole will be admitted.” City of Atlanta v. Sciple, 19 Ga. App. 694 (3), 698 (92 S. E. 28), and cit. The foregoing ruling disposes of the first special ground of the motion for a new trial.

2. The fact that three of the jurors were members of the grand jury that found the bill against the accused is not cause for a new trial. The accused and his counsel, by the exercise of due diligence, could have discovered this fact before the jury was impaneled. Cason v. State, 23 Ga. App. 540 (5) (99 S. E. 61) ; Jones v. State, 95 Ga. 497 (20 S. E. 211).

3. The verdict was abundantly supported by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Lulce, J., concur. J. T. Sisk, for plaintiff in error. A. S. Skelton, solicitor-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 S.E. 184, 35 Ga. App. 580, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 1001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thornton-v-state-gactapp-1926.

Opinion

3. The verdict was abundantly supported by the evidence.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack