Walton v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Walton v. State

125 S.E. 511, 33 Ga. App. 48, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 710

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 12, 1924

Docket15778

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 125 S.E. 511 (Walton 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

Walton v. State, 125 S.E. 511, 33 Ga. App. 48, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 710 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. The special ground of the motion for a new trial is as follows: “Because the court erred in not delivering his charge immediately with the clerk of said court, immediately after he had read it to the jury, instead of waiting until the 17th day of June, 1924.” A new trial should not- be granted on this ground of the motion, because it is incomplete, in that it is not made to appear therein that counsel requested the judge, before the argument was begun, to write out his charge as required by section 1056 of the Penal Code of 1910. Ashley-Price Lumber Co. v. Henry, 23 Ga. App. 93 (1) (98 S. E. 185); Jones v. State, 65 Ga. 507 (8).

2. The defendant was convicted of adultery and fornication. There is direct evidence that she was unmarried and the other party was married j and while the evidence as to the corpus delicti is circumstantial, it is sufficient to “exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused.”

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. The special ground of the motion for a new trial is as follows: “Because the court erred in not delivering his charge immediately with the clerk of said court, immediately after he had read it to the jury, instead of waiting until the 17th day of June, 1924.” A new trial should not- be granted on this ground of the motion, because it is incomplete, in that it is not made to appear therein that counsel requested the judge, before the argument was begun, to write out his charge as required by section 1056 of the Penal Code of 1910. Ashley-Price Lumber Co. v. Henry, 23 Ga. App. 93 (1) (98 S. E. 185); Jones v. State, 65 Ga. 507 (8).

2. The defendant was convicted of adultery and fornication. There is direct evidence that she was unmarried and the other party was married j and while the evidence as to the corpus delicti is circumstantial, it is sufficient to “exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused.”

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 S.E. 511, 33 Ga. App. 48, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walton-v-state-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack