Green v. State
| Decision Date | 15 April 1920 |
| Docket Number | 1655. |
| Citation | 102 S.E. 813,150 Ga. 121 |
| Parties | GREEN v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
It is not a good ground of criticism upon a portion of the court's charge to say that some other principle of law involved under the facts of the case should have been given in the charge. If the court omits to charge the law applicable to the material issues of the case, that should be made a distinct ground of the motion for a new trial, in order to avail the plaintiff in error.
The court did not err in charging the jury: "The court instructs you further that a person shall not be found guilty of any crime or misdemeanor committed by misfortune or accident, and where it satisfactorily appears there was no evil design or intention or culpable neglect." This charge was applicable to the issues made under the defendant's statement and the evidence in the case.
The court did not err in refusing a written request to give in charge section 67, Penal Code 1910. A part of this section was not applicable to any of the evidence adduced on the trial; and, the request being that the section in its entirety be given, it was properly refused.
None of the assignments of error show cause for the grant of a new trial, nor do any of them raise questions that are novel or which require discussion.
Error from Superior Court, Colquitt County; W. E. Thomas, Judge.
Sam Green was convicted of an offense, and he brings error. Affirmed.
John R. Cooper and W. O. Cooper, Jr., both of Macon, and John T. Coyle, of Moultrie, for plaintiff in error.
Clifford E. Hay, Sol. Gen., of Thomasville, Clifford Walker, Atty. Gen., and M. C. Bennet, of Atlanta, for the State.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur, except GILBERT, J., absent for providential cause.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edwards v. Atlanta
...of a portion of the charge, that the court should, under the facts of the case, have charged another principle of law. Green v. State, 150 Ga. 121, 102 S.E. 813; Thompson v. Powell, 60 Ga.App. 796, 5 S.E.2d 260, 267, 11. Special grounds 5 and 7 complain of the failure of the judge to charge......
-
Edwards v. Atlanta, B. & C. R. Co.
...of a portion of the charge, that the court should, under the facts of the case, have charged another principle of law. Green v. State, 150 Ga. 121, 102 S.E. 813; Thompson v. Powell, 60 Ga.App. 796, 5 S.E.2d 267, 11. Special grounds 5 and 7 complain of the failure of the judge to charge the ......
-
Smith v. State
... ... the case should have been given in the charge. If the court ... omits to charge the law applicable to the material issues of ... the case, that should be made a distinct ground of the motion ... for a new trial, in order to avail the plaintiff in ... error." Green v. State, 150 Ga. 121, 102 S.E ... 813. See, also, Peeples v. Rudulph, 153 Ga. 17 (2), ... 111 S.E. 548, and cit. In the next place, the testimony of ... Dr. Ross did not show a statement by the deceased favorable ... to the accused, unless in the sense that it did not go so far ... as to ... ...
-
Thompson v. Powell
... ... statement of his contentions, plaintiff could not complain ... that the court failed to state certain of his ... contentions ... 1 ... Under the law and the evidence the jury was authorized to ... return a verdict in ... the case, that should be made a distinct ground of the motion ... for a new trial, in order to avail the plaintiff in ... error." Green v. State, 150 Ga. 121 (1), 102 ... S.E. 813. In the absence of a written request, the court did ... not err in failing to define proximate cause ... ...