Bagley v. State, 19197
| Decision Date | 15 February 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 19197,19197 |
| Parties | Buck BAGLEY v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The judgment denying the motion for a new trial in this case was not erroneous for any reason assigned.
Buck Bagley was indicted, tried, and convicted in the Superior Court of Bartow County of murder. He filed a motion for new trial on the general grounds and later amended adding a number of special grounds. The motion was denied. The exception here is to that judgment.
Ingram & Tull, Cartersville, for plaintiff in error.
Erwin Mitchell, Sol. Gen., Dalton, Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Rubye G. Jackson, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
1. In so far as the general grounds of the motion for new trial are concerned, it is sufficient to say that the evidence amply supports the verdict finding the defendant guilty of the offense charged.
2. The first and second special grounds of the motion for new trial complains of an excerpt from the charge of the court. The portion of the charge excepted to, after defining direct and circumstantial evidence, reads as follows: 'In so far as the State relies in this case for a conviction on circumstantial evidence alone, the proven facts must not only be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, but must be inconsistent with the theory of innocence.' These two grounds make a number of complaints with reference to this portion of the charge. While it would be the better practice to charge the law with reference to circumstantial evidence in the terms of the Code section, Code, § 38-102, the charge above quoted is substantially correct, and the complaints made against it are not sufficient to authorize the grant of a new trial. See Townsend v. State, 86 Ga.App. 459, 71 S.E.2d 738, where this identical charge was approved.
3. It is next contended that the court below erred in failing to charge, without request, the defense of alibi. There is no merit in this contention. If the defense of alibi was raised at all, it was raised only in the defendant's statement. It is well-settled law in this State that it is not error to fail, in the absence of a written request to do so, to charge the defense of alibi when such defense is raised only by the defendant's statement. Wynes v. State, 182 Ga. 434, 185 S.E. 711. Accordingly, it was not error to fail to charge this defense.
4. It is next contended that the court below erred in failing to charge, without request, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pittman v. State, 50029
...54 S.E. 82; Wynes v. State, 182 Ga. 434, 436(5), 185 S.E. 711, Williams v. State, 199 Ga. 504, 511(10), 34 S.E.2d 854; Bagley v. State, 212 Ga. 206, 207(3), 91 S.E.2d 506; Fuller v. State, 228 Ga. 546(2), 186 S.E.2d 888; Hunt v. State, 229 Ga. 869, 870(3), 195 S.E.2d 31; Reed v. State, 15 G......
-
Bryant v. State, 27057
...and the only basis for alibi consists of a defendant's unsworn statement. Wynes v. State, 182 Ga. 434(5), 185 S.E. 711; Bagley v. State, 212 Ga. 206(3), 91 S.E.2d 506. The case at bar is even stronger in that here the appellant's alibi was not even raised by his unsworn statement but only i......
-
Fields v. State, 29112
...and the only basis for alibi consists of a defendant's unsworn statement. Wynes v. State, 182 Ga. 434(5), 185 S.E. 711; Bagley v. State, 212 Ga. 206(3), 91 S.E.2d 506.' Bryant v. State, 229 Ga. 60, 62, 189 S.E.2d 435, 437; Hunt v. State, 229 Ga. 869(3), 195 S.E.2d 31. In the present case th......
-
Holton v. State
...was confusing. The better practice is to charge the law of circumstantial evidence in terms of OCGA § 24-4-6, Bagley v. State, 212 Ga. 206, 207(2), 91 S.E.2d 506 (1956), and then if necessary make the point addressed by the trial court here by charging that " 'in order to justify the infere......