Stevens v. State
| Decision Date | 18 December 1893 |
| Parties | STEVENS v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The rule of law which forbids a judge to express or intimate his opinion as to the facts of a case, or as to the guilt of the accused, has reference to the expression or intimation of such opinion during the progress of the trial. Code, § 3248. No such expression or intimation of opinion is involved in the use of the word "murder" in the order calling the special term "for the purpose of trying criminal business, and especially to try such as may be indicted for the murder of J. G. Wells."
2. No facts being shown in support of the motion for continuance on the ground of public excitement and want of time to prepare for trial, it does not appear that there was any abuse of discretion in overruling the motion.
3. Where, after a grossly improper remark by a bystander has been made on the arraignment of a prisoner, and in the hearing of persons summoned as jurors, the defendant allows the case to proceed without objection, and without moving to postpone the trial, or in any way invoking the ruling of the court, such improper remark does not furnish cause for a new trial; especially where, as in this case, the presiding judge promptly rebuked the offender, and had him removed from the court room. Improper remarks made by another bystander, but not heard by the court, no attention being called thereto until after the trial, will not require a new trial.
4. Grounds of a motion for a new trial, based on the admission of testimony over objection, will not be considered where it does not appear what objection was made.
5. There was no error in the charges of the court complained of. The verdict was warranted by the evidence, and there was no error in refusing a new trial.
Error from superior court, Terrell county; J. M. Griggs, Judge.
Harrison Stevens was convicted of murder, and brings error. Affirmed.
M. C. Edwards, Jr., and E. J. Hart, for plaintiff in error.
H. C. Sheffield, Sol. Gen., and J. M. Terrell, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Charlon v. State
...the case requiring more time for its preparation, it should have been shown when the motion for continuance was made. See Stevens v. State, 93 Ga. 307, 20 S. E. 331 (Syl. point 2). The accused had no absent witnesses; there was nothing peculiar about the facts of the case; and no theory of ......
- Stevens v. State