Watkins v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Watkins v. State

133 S.E. 302, 35 Ga. App. 381, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 371

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 12, 1926

Docket17206

StatusPublished

This text of 133 S.E. 302 (Watkins 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

Watkins v. State, 133 S.E. 302, 35 Ga. App. 381, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 371 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

Only the first headnote needs elaboration. The motion for a new trial alleges that the court erred in admitting certain evidence, the objection thereto being “that the evidence was illegal for the reason that the witness was being questioned and was testifying to a similar offense committed at a different time from that for which he [the defendant?] was then on trial.” It is well settled that the prosecution is not restricted in its proof to the precise date alleged in the indictment or other criminal accusation, but may prove the commission of the alleged offense-at any time within the statute of limitations. Cook v. State, 33 Ga. App. 571 (127 S. E. 156). “In misdemeanor cases it is the constant practice to submit to the jury evidence of several misdemeanors of the same character perpetrated by the same individuals.” Autrey v. State, 23 Ga. App. 764 (2) (99 S. E. 389). [382]*382Under the facts of this case, and in the light of the qualifying note of the trial judge, there is no merit in this ground to the motion • for a new trial.

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.

Only the first headnote needs elaboration. The motion for a new trial alleges that the court erred in admitting certain evidence, the objection thereto being “that the evidence was illegal for the reason that the witness was being questioned and was testifying to a similar offense committed at a different time from that for which he [the defendant?] was then on trial.” It is well settled that the prosecution is not restricted in its proof to the precise date alleged in the indictment or other criminal accusation, but may prove the commission of the alleged offense-at any time within the statute of limitations. Cook v. State, 33 Ga. App. 571 (127 S. E. 156). “In misdemeanor cases it is the constant practice to submit to the jury evidence of several misdemeanors of the same character perpetrated by the same individuals.” Autrey v. State, 23 Ga. App. 764 (2) (99 S. E. 389). [382]*382Under the facts of this case, and in the light of the qualifying note of the trial judge, there is no merit in this ground to the motion • for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 S.E. 302, 35 Ga. App. 381, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watkins-v-state-gactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack