Moore v. State
| Decision Date | 12 January 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 25916.,25916. |
| Citation | 55 Ga.App. 157,189 S.E. 551 |
| Parties | MOORE. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Error from City Court of Columbus; G. Y. Tigner, Judge.
H. C. Moore was convicted of riot, and he brings error.
Reversed.
See, also, 53 Ga.App. 472, 186 S.E. 469.
Ed. Wohlwender, Jr., of Columbus, for plaintiff in error.
B. H. Chappell, Sol., of Columbus, for the State.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. "It is well settled that, while it is not incumbent upon the judge, in the absence of a timely and appropriate written request, to charge upon the subject of the impeachment of witnesses, yet, where that subject is referred to in the charge, all of it that is material and applicable to the facts of the case should be given." Williams v. State, 25 Ga.App. 193 (1), 102 S.E. 875, and cit.
2. Applying the foregoing ruling to the facts of the instant case, the court erred in the following particulars: (1) In failing to instruct the jury that in determining, the credibility of the witnesses they could consider the interest or lack of interest of the witnesses, their demeanor on the stand, and their opportunity of knowing the facts about which they testified. (2) In failing to charge the jury, in substance, that where a witness has been successfully contradicted as to a material matter, his credit as to other matters is for them to determine; but if they believe that a witness has knowingly and willfully sworn falsely about a materialmatter, all of his testimony should be rejected unless corroborated by circumstances or other unimpeached evidence; and that where a witness has been impeached on the ground of bad character, it is for the jury to determine whether they should believe his testimony. (3) In failing to instruct the jury on the subject of sustaining an impeached witness.
3. "Any two or more persons who shall do an unlawful act of violence or any other act in a violent and tumultuous manner, shall be guilty of a riot." Code, § 26-5302. In the instant case the accused was charged in the accusation with committing several particular and specific unlawful acts of violence and several particular and specific acts in a violent and tumultuous manner. In a ground of the motion for new trial, complaint is made that the charge of the court on the law of riot instructed the jury that they would be authorized to find the defendant guilty of the offense charged (riot) if they believed from the evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haynes v. Phillips
...that a witness could be sustained by proof of good character, there being evidence of the witness' good character. Moore v. State, 55 Ga. App. 157, 189 S.E. 551. 3. Assuming for the sake of argument that the evidence authorized a charge that if the jury believed a witness swore wilfully and......