Skip to content

Barker v. State

Barker v. State, 56 S.E. 419 (Ga. 1907)

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia · State Highest Courts
Decided: January 15, 1907
Judges: Fish, Lumpkin
Citations: 56 S.E. 419127 Ga. 2761907 Ga. LEXIS 221

Cited by 6

Summary

Petition fox certiorari. Before Judge Mitchell. Tift superior court. October 3, 1906. Barker and Bell excepted to the refusal of the judge of the .superior court to sanction their petition for certiorari. From the petition it appeared, that the petitioners were convicted in the city court of Tifton, under an accusation of gaming, and that the evidence introduced on the trial was to the effect that police officers discovered them at night in a closed house, playing a game of cards named “five up,” but that po money was seen. It appeared also that the prosecuting attorney, in his argument to the jury, said) that while he was not allowed to comment on the failure of the defendants to make a statement, he would call on Mr. Smith (their •attorney) to explain it in his closing argument to the jury; that the defendants’ attorneys objected to this statement of the prosecuting attorney and requested him to withdraw it, but he refused to do so, and they were asked by the court not to interrupt the argument again.. The petition alleges, among other assignments of error, that the verdict was without evidence to support it, and that the court erred in failing to declare a mistrial, or rebuke the prosecuting attorney, or instruct the jury in reference to his remark as .above set out.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Lumpkin

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Lumpkin, J.

1. That a person accused of a crime does not make a statement is not a proper subject of comment by the prosecuting attorney; nor should he, in the presence of the jury, call on the prisoner’s counsel for an explanation of the failure to make a statement. Where this has-been done, on application duly made the court should grant a mistrial, or at least obviate any injurious effects by appropriate instructions, if this be practicable. Minor v. State, 120 Ga. 490 ; Caesar v. State, 125 Ga. 6 .

2. Evidence that an accused person played cards, with nothing to show that money or other thing of value .was bet, will not warrant a verdict convicting him of gaming.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Fish, C. J., absent. Barker and Bell excepted to the refusal of the judge of the .superior court to sanction their petition for certiorari. From the petition it appeared, that the petitioners were convicted in the city court of Tifton, under an accusation of gaming, and that the evidence introduced on the trial was to the effect that police officers discovered them at night in a closed house, playing a game of cards named “five up,” but that po money was seen. It appeared also that the prosecuting attorney, in his argument to the jury, said) that while he was not allowed to comment on the failure of the defendants to make a statement, he would call on Mr. Smith (their •attorney) to explain it in his closing argument to the jury; that the defendants’ attorneys objected to this statement of the prosecuting attorney and requested him to withdraw it, but he refused to do so, and they were asked by the court not to interrupt the argument again.. The petition alleges, among other assignments of error, that the verdict was without evidence to support it, and that the court erred in failing to declare a mistrial, or rebuke the prosecuting attorney, or instruct the jury in reference to his remark as .above set out. G. G. Ilall and B. D. Smith, for plaintiffs in error. W. H. Thomas, solicitor-general, contra.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 6 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Spann v. State190 S.E.2d 924 (Ga. Ct. App. 1972)
Elliott v. State824 S.E.2d 265 (Ga. 2019)
Mitchell v. State175 S.E.2d 545 (Ga. 1970)
Hicks v. State27 S.E.2d 307 (Ga. 1943)
Thornton v. State10 S.E.2d 746 (Ga. 1940)
Parks v. State67 S.E.2d 716 (Ga. 1951)

Most recent

Elliott v. State824 S.E.2d 265 (Ga. 2019)
Spann v. State190 S.E.2d 924 (Ga. Ct. App. 1972)
Mitchell v. State175 S.E.2d 545 (Ga. 1970)
Parks v. State67 S.E.2d 716 (Ga. 1951)
Hicks v. State27 S.E.2d 307 (Ga. 1943)
Thornton v. State10 S.E.2d 746 (Ga. 1940)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Minor v. State, 48 S.E. 198 (Ga. 1904)	14
	Caesar v. State, 53 S.E. 815 (Ga. 1906)	4