Wright v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Wright v. State

117 S.E. 776, 30 Ga. App. 75, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 255

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 8, 1923

Docket14038

StatusPublished

This text of 117 S.E. 776 (Wright 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

Wright v. State, 117 S.E. 776, 30 Ga. App. 75, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 255 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

Upon conflicting evidence, tlie jury were authorized to convict the defendant; and the conviction has the approval of the trial judge. Grounds 2 and 4 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial are too incomplete to be considered by this court. The other special grounds, as to the exclusion of testimony, are, in view of the evidence in the case, without merit. The jury, as they had a right to do, believed the evidence for the State and disbelieved the defendant’s evidence. It was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodic-orth,. J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

Upon conflicting evidence, tlie jury were authorized to convict the defendant; and the conviction has the approval of the trial judge. Grounds 2 and 4 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial are too incomplete to be considered by this court. The other special grounds, as to the exclusion of testimony, are, in view of the evidence in the case, without merit. The jury, as they had a right to do, believed the evidence for the State and disbelieved the defendant’s evidence. It was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodic-orth,. J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 S.E. 776, 30 Ga. App. 75, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-state-gactapp-1923.