Wells v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Wells v. State

122 S.E. 646, 32 Ga. App. 79, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 278

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 16, 1924

Docket15370

StatusPublished

This text of 122 S.E. 646 (Wells 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

Wells v. State, 122 S.E. 646, 32 Ga. App. 79, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 278 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The accused, a female, was on trial for assault with intent to murder. Her character was not in issue. It incidentally appears from uncontradicted testimony that she was married, though not living with her husband at the time of the alleged transaction. During the concluding argument an attorney employed by the prosecutrix declared to the jury, “You should convict the little wench,” and, in reply to a motion by defendant’s counsel for a mistrial, he added: “I base the fact that she is a wench on the fact that she has got no husband and that she has got a baby.” Defendant’s counsel then duly moved for a mistrial because of both of such statements of the special counsel for the prosecution. The court overruled the motion, saying: “I will instruct the jury not to consider the argument of counsel to the defendant’s character, and I will overrule the motion for mistrial.” This ruling is assigned as error in defendant’s motion for a new trial. Civil Code (1910), §4957; Morris v. Maddox, 97 Ga. 575 (2) (25 S. E. 487); Hudson v. State, 101 Ga. 520 (3) (28 S. E. 1010); Ivey v. State, 113 Ga. 1062 (2) (39 S. E. 423); Butler v. State, 142 Ga. 286 (11) (82 S. E. 654); Smoot v. State, 146 Ga. 76 (1) (90 S. E. 715). The argument of counsel was not authorized by the evidence, and the court failed in its charge to instruct the jury not to consider it.

Other grounds of the motion for a new trial, if meritorious, are not such as will likely recur upon another trial of the case.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

The accused, a female, was on trial for assault with intent to murder. Her character was not in issue. It incidentally appears from uncontradicted testimony that she was married, though not living with her husband at the time of the alleged transaction. During the concluding argument an attorney employed by the prosecutrix declared to the jury, “You should convict the little wench,” and, in reply to a motion by defendant’s counsel for a mistrial, he added: “I base the fact that she is a wench on the fact that she has got no husband and that she has got a baby.” Defendant’s counsel then duly moved for a mistrial because of both of such statements of the special counsel for the prosecution. The court overruled the motion, saying: “I will instruct the jury not to consider the argument of counsel to the defendant’s character, and I will overrule the motion for mistrial.” This ruling is assigned as error in defendant’s motion for a new trial. Civil Code (1910), §4957; Morris v. Maddox, 97 Ga. 575 (2) (25 S. E. 487); Hudson v. State, 101 Ga. 520 (3) (28 S. E. 1010); Ivey v. State, 113 Ga. 1062 (2) (39 S. E. 423); Butler v. State, 142 Ga. 286 (11) (82 S. E. 654); Smoot v. State, 146 Ga. 76 (1) (90 S. E. 715). The argument of counsel was not authorized by the evidence, and the court failed in its charge to instruct the jury not to consider it.

Other grounds of the motion for a new trial, if meritorious, are not such as will likely recur upon another trial of the case.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 S.E. 646, 32 Ga. App. 79, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-v-state-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack