Williams v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Williams v. State

98 S.E. 557, 23 Ga. App. 518, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 174

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 7, 1919

Docket10225

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 98 S.E. 557 (Williams 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

Williams v. State, 98 S.E. 557, 23 Ga. App. 518, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 174 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, P. J.

1. The fact that a juror is related within' the prohibited degree to a ^witness for the State in a criminal prosecution does not render him incompetent to serve as a juror upon the trial of the case. Athinson v. State, 112 Ga. 411 (37 S. E. 747) ; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Mead, 22 Ga. App. 70 (95 S. E. 476); 16 R. C. L. 259, § 77.

'(a) The contention of the accused, as set forth in his motion for a new' trial, was that the witness who was related to one of the jurors was the “prosecuting witness,” and-“to all intents and purposes was in fact the prosecutor in said case.” Even if this contention were supported by the affidavits submitted, and even if the proof of this contention were sufficient in law to establish the disqualification of the juror, yet, as the evidence submitted by the movant 'was met by a counter-showing by the State, the judge was the trior of this issue, and it does not appear that he abused his discretion in resolving it in favor of the State.

2. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodicorth and Stephens, JJ., concur.

Accusation, of misdemeanor; from city court of Blackshéar— Judge Mitchell. October 26, 1918.

James R. Thomas, W. W. Bennett, for plaintiff in error.. S. F. Memory, solicitor, contra.

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

Broyles, P. J.

1. The fact that a juror is related within' the prohibited degree to a ^witness for the State in a criminal prosecution does not render him incompetent to serve as a juror upon the trial of the case. Athinson v. State, 112 Ga. 411 (37 S. E. 747) ; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Mead, 22 Ga. App. 70 (95 S. E. 476); 16 R. C. L. 259, § 77.

'(a) The contention of the accused, as set forth in his motion for a new' trial, was that the witness who was related to one of the jurors was the “prosecuting witness,” and-“to all intents and purposes was in fact the prosecutor in said case.” Even if this contention were supported by the affidavits submitted, and even if the proof of this contention were sufficient in law to establish the disqualification of the juror, yet, as the evidence submitted by the movant 'was met by a counter-showing by the State, the judge was the trior of this issue, and it does not appear that he abused his discretion in resolving it in favor of the State.

2. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodicorth and Stephens, JJ., concur.

Accusation, of misdemeanor; from city court of Blackshéar— Judge Mitchell. October 26, 1918.

James R. Thomas, W. W. Bennett, for plaintiff in error.. S. F. Memory, solicitor, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 S.E. 557, 23 Ga. App. 518, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-state-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack