Moss v. State, (No. 6356.)
| Decision Date | 13 June 1928 |
| Docket Number | (No. 6356.) |
| Citation | 166 Ga. 517,143 S.E. 900 |
| Parties | MOSS . v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied July 11, 1928.
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
Error from Superior Court, Murray County; C. C. Pittman, Judge.
Jim Hugh Moss was convicted of a homicide, and he brings error. Affirmed.
Tom J. Taylor, of Etowah, Tenn., and Stafford R. Brooke, W. E. Mann, and W. G. Mann, all of Dalton, for plaintiff In error.
John C. Mitchell, Sol. Gen., of Dalton, and Geo. M. Napier, Atty. Gen., and T. R. Gress, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
ATKINSON, J. [1, 2] 1. Jim Hugh Moss was jointly indicted with Cliff Thompson and Eula E. Thompson for the murder of Coleman Osborne by shooting him with a pistol. Moss on separate trial was convicted. One ground of his motion for new trial is because the court admitted in evidence a "magnifying glass for the use of the jury in making a comparison, if they saw fit to use it, * * * to see more clearly the marks on the shells" that had been admitted in evidence. The admission of the magnifying glass in evidence was over the objections: (a) That it was material and irrelevant, (b) That "no member of the jury has qualified as an expert, and all they can do is to take the evidence from the witnesses on the stand." Held: (a) It was not error to admit the evidence over the objections urged at the time it was offered, (b) Other grounds of objections were set forth in the motion for new trial and argued In the brief of attorneys for the plaintiff in error. It does not appear that these objections were urged at the time the evidence was admitted. In the circumstances these grounds of objection cannot now be considered.
2. The admission in evidence of testimony of the sheriff of the county that he knew one of the other defendants, and that such codefendant was in the county jail just a few yards from the courthouse, if immaterial, was not of such character as would render its admission harmful to the defendant, and is not cause for reversal.
3. "A ground of a motion for a new trial assigning error upon the admission of evidence will not be considered unless the evidence is sufficiently set forth for the question of its admissibility to be determined without reference to other parts of the record." Pound v. Smith, 146 Ga. 431 (5), 91 S. E. 405. Under application of this principle, a ground of a motion for new trial which complains of the refusal of the court "to rule out the evidence of the witness T.^B. Etheridge, that he asked where Jim Hugh Moss was, and was told he was not at home, " on the ground "that it was hearsay evidence, " is insufficient. It would require resort to the brief of the evidence to determine the admissibility or harmful effect of the evidence. The ground of the motion for new trial fails to state the name of the person of whom the witness Etheridge made the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Empire Talc &. Lumber Co v. Cohutta Banking Co
...only prejudicial and harmful to movant, but was and is ground for new trial, and contrary to law and the rules of evidence" (see Moss v. State, 166 Ga. 517 [3], 143 S. E. 900); (7) the question and answer " * * * is hearsay, * * * it calls for a conclusion pure and simple, " "said testimony......
-
Empire Talc & Lumber Co. v. Cohutta Banking Co.
...only prejudicial and harmful to movant, but was and is ground for new trial, and contrary to law and the rules of evidence" (see Moss v. State, 166 Ga. 517 143 S.E. 900); (7) the question and answer "*** is hearsay, *** it calls for a conclusion pure and simple," "said testimony *** was con......