Watson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Watson v. State

176 S.E. 899, 50 Ga. App. 114, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 646

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 7, 1934

Docket24223

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 176 S.E. 899 (Watson 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

Watson v. State, 176 S.E. 899, 50 Ga. App. 114, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 646 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinions

Broyles, C. J.

1. Where a defendant in a criminal prosecution makes to the jury a statement which, on material issues in the case, is in conflict with the testimony of the witnesses, it is reversible error for the judge, in his charge, to use language which could easily mislead the jury to believe that he meant to instruct them that, while usually they had the right to believe the defendant’s statement in preference to the sworn testimony in the case, if there were a conflict, which could not be reconciled, between the testimony of the witnesses and the statement of the defendant, it would be their duty to believe the witnesses. This ruling is not affected by the fact that the judge had previously given a correct charge upon the defendant’s statement. See, in this connection, Delk v. State, 135 Ga. 312 (2) (69 S. E. 541, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 105) ; Caison v. State, 171 Ga. 1 (3) (154 S. E. 337).

2. Under the foregoing ruling and the facts of this case, the following excerpt from the charge of the court was' error and requires another hearing of the case: "If upon a consideration of the evidence in this case, you find there is a conflict in the testimony between the witnesses or between a witness and the defendant’s statement, it is your duty to reconcile this conflict if you can, without imputing perjury to any witness and without imputing a false statement to the defendant; and if you can not do 'this, it then becomes your duty to believe that witness or those witnesses you may think best entitled to belief, and you may consider their interest or want of interest in the result of the trial, their bias or prejudice if any appears, the reasonableness or unreasonableness of their testimony, and the personal credibility of the witness so far as the same may legitimately appear from the trial. The jury, as stated, are at last the sole and exclusive judges of the facts and the credibility of the witnesses, and what testimony they will believe or disbelieve.”

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur. Guerry, J., dissents.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. Where a defendant in a criminal prosecution makes to the jury a statement which, on material issues in the case, is in conflict with the testimony of the witnesses, it is reversible error for the judge, in his charge, to use language which could easily mislead the jury to believe that he meant to instruct them that, while usually they had the right to believe the defendant’s statement in preference to the sworn testimony in the case, if there were a conflict, which could not be reconciled, between the testimony of the witnesses and the statement of the defendant, it would be their duty to believe the witnesses. This ruling is not affected by the fact that the judge had previously given a correct charge upon the defendant’s statement. See, in this connection, Delk v. State, 135 Ga. 312 (2) (69 S. E. 541, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 105) ; Caison v. State, 171 Ga. 1 (3) (154 S. E. 337).

2. Under the foregoing ruling and the facts of this case, the following excerpt from the charge of the court was' error and requires another hearing of the case: "If upon a consideration of the evidence in this case, you find there is a conflict in the testimony between the witnesses or between a witness and the defendant’s statement, it is your duty to reconcile this conflict if you can, without imputing perjury to any witness and without imputing a false statement to the defendant; and if you can not do 'this, it then becomes your duty to believe that witness or those witnesses you may think best entitled to belief, and you may consider their interest or want of interest in the result of the trial, their bias or prejudice if any appears, the reasonableness or unreasonableness of their testimony, and the personal credibility of the witness so far as the same may legitimately appear from the trial. The jury, as stated, are at last the sole and exclusive judges of the facts and the credibility of the witnesses, and what testimony they will believe or disbelieve.”

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur. Guerry, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 S.E. 899, 50 Ga. App. 114, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-state-gactapp-1934.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack