Zacharias v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Zacharias v. State

11 S.E.2d 507, 63 Ga. App. 636, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 511

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 3, 1940

Docket28539.

StatusPublished

This text of 11 S.E.2d 507 (Zacharias 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

Zacharias v. State, 11 S.E.2d 507, 63 Ga. App. 636, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 511 (Ga. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was tried on an indictment charging the offense of an assault with intent to murder, and was convicted of assault and battery. His motion for new trial (consisting of the general grounds and one special ground) was overruled, and he excepted. The special ground assigns error on a Short excerpt from the charge of the court. The excerpt, when considered in the light of the entire charge and the facts of the case, does not require a reversal of the judgment. The charge as a whole clearly presented the vital issues raised by the evidence and the defendant’s statement, and was not prejudicial to his cause. The cases cited in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error are not controlling in this case. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was tried on an indictment charging the offense of an assault with intent to murder, and was convicted of assault and battery. His motion for new trial (consisting of the general grounds and one special ground) was overruled, and he excepted. The special ground assigns error on a Short excerpt from the charge of the court. The excerpt, when considered in the light of the entire charge and the facts of the case, does not require a reversal of the judgment. The charge as a whole clearly presented the vital issues raised by the evidence and the defendant’s statement, and was not prejudicial to his cause. The cases cited in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error are not controlling in this case. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 S.E.2d 507, 63 Ga. App. 636, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zacharias-v-state-gactapp-1940.