Carter v. State
| Decision Date | 09 November 1909 |
| Docket Number | (No. 2,156.) |
| Parties | CARTER . v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Criminal Law (§§ 787, 1172*)—Appeal—Instructions—Harmless Error.
Where the defendant has not made a statement in his own behalf, it is not proper for the court to give in charge section 1010 of the Penal Code of 1895. Unless the reference to the defendant's right to make a statement occurs in such connection as to leave the jury to infer that his failure to make one is to be counted against him. the error stands upon a like footing to that which arises ordinarily when a court gives in charge some principle of law, abstractly correct, but not pertinent to the facts in the case. Whether such an error is reversible or not depends almost entirely upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case. In the present instance the proof of the defendant's guilt is very satisfactory, no other errors are complained of, it is not likely that any material prejudice was done the defendant by the court'sinadvertence, and therefore the error is deemed harmless.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1903, 3154; Dec. Dig. §§ 787, 1172.2-*]
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Terrell County; W. C. Worrill, Judge.
Clint Carter was convicted of crime, and he brings error. Affirmed.
H. A. Wilkinson, for plaintiff in error.
J. A. Laing, Sol. Gen., and R. R. Arnold, for the State.
POWELL, J. Judgment affirmed.
*.For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Reporter Indexes
2-*.For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Reporter Indexes
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cauley v. State, s. 48422
...that any material prejudice was done the defendant by the court's inadvertence; therefore the error is deemed harmless.' Carter v. State, 7 Ga.App. 42, 65 S.E. 1090, followed in Williams v. State, 81 Ga.App. 748, 750(2), 59 S.E.2d 743, where a new trial was sought 'because the court erred i......
-
Woodard v. State, 30248
...for by the appellant. Compare U.S. v. Houston, 5 Cir., 434 F.2d 613; Locklear v. U.S., 5 Cir., 393 F.2d 729. See also Carter v. State, 7 Ga.App. 42, 65 S.E. 1090; Stephens v. State, 21 Ga.App. 151(2), 94 S.E. 69; Tucker v. State, 29 Ga. App. 221, 114 S.E. 583; all decided prior to the 1962 ......
-
Valdosta Coca Cola Bottling Works, Inc. v. Montgomery
...§ 81-1104. Daniel v. Charping, 151 Ga. 34, 105 S.E. 465; Rentz v. Collins, 51 Ga.App. 782, 181 S.E. 678 and citations; Carter v. State, 7 Ga.App. 42, 65 S.E. 1090.' Abbott v. State, 91 Ga.App. 380, 85 S.E.2d 615, 616. The ground of the motion for new trial does not set forth the evidence re......
-
Lackey v. State, 50608
...occur in such a manner as to imply to the jury that the defendant's failure to testify should be construed against him. Carter v. State, 7 Ga.App. 42, 65 S.E. 1090; Tucker v. State, 29 Ga.App. 221(1), 114 S.E. 583; White v. State, 118 Ga.App. 515, 164 S.E.2d 158. And see Locklear v. State, ......