Tucker v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Tucker v. State

112 S.E. 158, 28 Ga. App. 563, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 695

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 9, 1922

Docket13411

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 S.E. 158 (Tucker 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

Tucker v. State, 112 S.E. 158, 28 Ga. App. 563, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 695 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. The only special ground oi the motion for a new-trial is as follows: “ Because during the trial of said case Hon. Marion L. Eelts, solicitor-general, who represented the State in the prosecution of said case, stated to the jury that the defendant had not made any statement in his own defense. Movant shows that in no part of the judge’s charge to the jury in said case was this act of the solicitor-general against the rights of the defendant obviated or cured.” This ground is incomplete and will not require the grant of a new trial. It does not allege at what stage of the trial or in what connection this statement of the solicitor-general was made, or that it was heard by the judge or that his attention was directed to it.

2. A strong case was not made against the accused, but there was some evidence to support the verdict, and “whenever there is any evidence, however slight, to support a verdict which has been approved by the trial judge, this court is absolutely without authority to control the judgment of the trial court.” Bradham v. State, 21 Ga. App. 510 (94 S. E. 618), and cases cited.

•Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. The only special ground oi the motion for a new-trial is as follows: “ Because during the trial of said case Hon. Marion L. Eelts, solicitor-general, who represented the State in the prosecution of said case, stated to the jury that the defendant had not made any statement in his own defense. Movant shows that in no part of the judge’s charge to the jury in said case was this act of the solicitor-general against the rights of the defendant obviated or cured.” This ground is incomplete and will not require the grant of a new trial. It does not allege at what stage of the trial or in what connection this statement of the solicitor-general was made, or that it was heard by the judge or that his attention was directed to it.

2. A strong case was not made against the accused, but there was some evidence to support the verdict, and “whenever there is any evidence, however slight, to support a verdict which has been approved by the trial judge, this court is absolutely without authority to control the judgment of the trial court.” Bradham v. State, 21 Ga. App. 510 (94 S. E. 618), and cases cited.

•Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 S.E. 158, 28 Ga. App. 563, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucker-v-state-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack