Hudgins v. State
| Decision Date | 23 September 1913 |
| Docket Number | (No. 4,918.) |
| Citation | 79 S.E. 367,13 Ga. App. 489 |
| Parties | HUDGINS. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from City Court of Dublin; J. B. Hicks, Judge.
Will Hudgins was convicted of carrying a pistol concealed, and brings error. Affirmed.
H. P. Howard and T. E. Hightower, both of Dublin, for plaintiff in error.
Geo. B. Davis, Sol., of Dublin, for the state.
RUSSELL, J. 1, 2. The defendant was convicted of carrying a pistol concealed. The complexion of the case is such that the jury would have been authorized to acquit the accused. However, inasmuch as there is evidence which authorized the conviction of the defendant, it cannot be held that the trial judge erred in overruling the motion for new trial, so far as the motion is predicated upon the ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence and without evidence to support it.
In reference to the special grounds: The court did not err in permitting the recall of the witness Joe Beard, to testify for the state, over the objection of the defendant's counsel, although at the beginning of the trial the defendant had asked for a strict sequestration of the witnesses, and later, after this witness had testified in chief, again requested the court to send this witness from the room during the examination of the other witnesses, if the state intended to use him again. It appears from the indictment that Joe Beard was the prosecutor. In enforcing the right accorded by section 1043 of the Penal Code to either party in a case to have the witnesses of the opposite party examined out of the hearing of each other, the judge discharges an administrative function of the court, but the manner of its exercise is necessarily addressed largely to his sound discretion, Shaw v. State, 102 Ga. 666, 667, 29 S. E. 477; Keller v. State, 102 Ga. 506 (1), 31 S. E. 92.
So far as we know, the practice is almost universal for the court to permit the prosecutor, whose name appears upon the indictment, to remain in the courtroom throughout the trial, to aid the solicitor general in the conduct of the case. Of course, in passing upon the credibility of a prosecutor's testimony, if he should be a witness, the jury would take into consideration the fact that he had heard the testimony, just as they would view his testimony in the light of his interest as a prosecutor. While, as suggested by counsel for the plaintiff in error, it appears from the record that the testimony of the prosecutor, upon his second examination, referred to the testimony of the witnesses for the defendant who had testified in the interval between his first and second examinations, and sought to specifically deny what they had sworn, still this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norman v. State
...he may be used as a witness. Swain v. State, 151 Ga. 375(2), 107 S.E. 40; Keller v. State, 102 Ga. 506, 31 S.E. 92; Hudgins v. State, 13 Ga.App. 489(2), 79 S.E. 367. While the indictment was by special presentment of the grand jury, the owner of the turkeys alleged to have been stolen occup......
-
Chastain v. State
...is, the one who signs the indictment bringing the charges. Roach v. State, 221 Ga. 783(7), 147 S.E.2d 299 (1966); Hudgins v. State, 13 Ga.App. 489(2), 79 S.E. 367 (1913); Tift v. State, 133 Ga.App. 455(1), 211 S.E.2d 409 (1974). The prosecutor may testify as a witness after other witnesses ......
-
Tift v. State, 49859
... ... He then placed the prosecuting lieutenant on the stand as the second witness. The defense objection to permitting him then to testify was overruled, this being the basis of the appellant's first enumeration of error. The trial court ruled correctly and in accordance with Hudgins v ... State, 13 Ga.App. 489, 79 S.E. 367 and Sparks v. State, 121 Ga.App. 115, 116(3), 173 S.E.2d 239. The cases of Bush v. State, 129 Ga.App. 160, 199 S.E.2d 121 and Childers v. State, 130 Ga.App. 555, 203 S.E.2d 874, relied upon by appellant have no application to the facts of the case at ... ...
-
Sparks v. State
...reason appearing in the report for his presence, except that he was prosecutor. The citations in the Swain case include Hudgins v. State, 13 Ga.App. 489, 79 S.E. 367 in which the statement is made (p. 490, 79 S.E. at 368) that 'So far as we know, the pratice is almost universal for the cour......