Williams v. State
Opinion
1. This court will not interfere with the discretion of the trial judge in refusing to allow the accused, after he has finished his statement and the State has introduced no testimony, to make a-[490]*490supplemental statement in order to meet evidence brought out by the cross-examination of a witness, or witnesses, introduced by the accused himself. See Vaughn v. State, 88 Ga. 732.
.2. The evidence was amply sufficient to warrant the verdict; , and no error of law having been committed, the court did not err in refusing to grant the motion- for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
30 S.E. 814 (Williams v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.