Smith v. State
| Decision Date | 08 December 1903 |
| Parties | SMITH . v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
CRIMINAL LAW — APPEAL — REVIEW — EXCLUSION OP EVIDENCE — INSTRUCTIONS — ARGUMENT OP COUNSEL—NEW TRIAL.
1. It not appearing in the motion for a new trial what the answer of the court stenographer to the question asked him was or would have been, this court cannot consider the complaint that the rejection of his evidence was error.
2. It was not error that the court excluded from the evidence the official stenographer's notes of a dialogue between counsel and a witness on a former trial of the same case, it not appearing prima facie that such evidence elucidated any point in the case on trial, and the complaint in the motion for a new trial not showing in what way it injuriously affected the rights of the accused.
3. The assignment of error upon the charge of the court falls within the ruling of this court in Anderson v. Southern Ry. Co., 107 Ga. 501, 33 S. E. 644 (4c), that "when a portion of a charge, which is complained of generally, contains several distinct propositions, and one or more of the same is correct in the abstract, then the general assignment of error is not good and will not be further considered."
4. It did not appear that the evidence objected to, even if inadmissible, was of such materiality that its subsequent withdrawal by the court from the consideration of the jury did not cure whatever harm had been done the accused.
5. The record does not disclose that the alleged improper argument of counsel was made the basis of a motion for a mistrial, or that any objection whatever was made thereto before the trial judge, and therefore it was not error to refuse to grant a new trial on the ground of such argument.
6. The evidence fully sustained the conviction of the accused, and this court will not interfere with the judgment of the court below refusing to grant a new trial.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from City Court of Dublin; J. S. Adams, Judge.
Plummer Smith was convicted of crime, and brings error. Affirmed.
Geo. W. Williams, for plaintiff in error.
G. H. Williams, Sol., for the State.
CANDLER, J. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Ry. Co. v. Wright
... ... the matter, unless objection be made at the trial." ... Indeed, in the earlier case of Young v. State, 65 ... Ga. 525, it was held that, when counsel in argument travel ... outside of the case, the attention of the court should be ... called to ... 143, 15 S.E. 744; Gress Lumber Co. v ... Coody, 99 Ga. 778, 27 S.E. 169; Bowens v ... State, 106 Ga. 760, 32 S.E. 666; Smith v ... State, 119 Ga. 113, 46 S.E. 79 (5); Odell v ... State, 120 Ga. 152, 47 S.E. 577. We will remark in ... passing, however, that, as the ... ...
-
Nelson v. State
... ... "Where error is assigned to the charge as a whole, such ... assignment will not be considered, if it appears that any ... part of the charge complained of was legal." Dixon ... v. State, 105 Ga. 787(1), 31 S.E. 750 ... See, ... also, Anderson v. State, 72 Ga. 98 (2); Smith v ... State, 119 Ga. 113 (3), 46 S.E. 79; Miller v ... State, 121 Ga. 135 (2), 48 S.E. 904 ... 3 ... Complaint is made that the "court erred in failing to ... charge the defense offered by movant." This defense ... arose solely from the statement of the defendant, and, ... ...
-
City Of Moultrie v. Cook
...the answer objected to, presents no question for determination. Southern Ry. Co. v. Wright, 6 Ga. App. 175, 64 S. E. 703; Smith v. State, 119 Ga. 113 (1), 46 S. E. 79. [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2897-2899, 2902-2904, 2906, 2908; Dec. Dig. § 690.*] 2. Dam......
-
City of Moultrie v. Cook
... ... determination. Southern Ry. Co. v. Wright, 6 Ga.App ... 175, 64 S.E. 703; Smith v. State, 119 Ga. 113 (1), ... 46 S.E. 79 ... The ... trial court did not err in permitting the plaintiff to ... testify as to ... ...