Scott v. State
| Decision Date | 07 January 1938 |
| Docket Number | 26563. |
| Citation | 194 S.E. 844,57 Ga.App. 187 |
| Parties | SCOTT v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
An accused was not entitled to a new trial because certain testimony of a witness for the state was admitted, where testimony admitted was in direct response to question asked by counsel for accused on cross-examination.
The reopening of a case to allow the introduction of additional evidence and further arguments by counsel, after introduction of evidence and conclusion of arguments by counsel for both parties, rests within discretion of trial court, reviewable only in case of manifest abuse.
Error from City Court of Sandersville; J. J. Harris, Judge.
Milo Scott was convicted of selling whisky and of keeping whisky at his place of business, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Evans & Evans and J. D. Godfrey, all of Sandersville, for plaintiff in error.
C. E. Mayo, Sol., of Sandersville, for the State.
Syllabus OPINION.
1. The ground of the motion for new trial, complaining of the admission of certain testimony of a witness for the State, is without merit, since the ground discloses that the testimony was elicited from the witness (presumably, on cross-examination) by counsel for the movant. Where counsel on the cross-examination of a witness takes a chance by propounding a dangerous question, he will not be heard to object to the answer, no matter how prejudicial it may be, if the answer is a direct and pertinent response to the question.
2. After the introduction of evidence and the conclusion of arguments by counsel for both parties, it is within the sound discretion of the court to reopen the case and allow the introduction of additional evidence and further argument by counsel; and this discretion, unless manifestly abused, will not be controlled by the reviewing court. In this case no such abuse of discretion appears.
3. The defendant was convicted of selling whisky, and of keeping whisky at his place of business. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial