TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Roberson v. State

Roberson v. State, 76 S.E. 752 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 21, 1912
Docket
No. 4536
Judges
Russell
Citations
76 S.E. 75212 Ga. App. 1021912 Ga. App. LEXIS 41
Cited by 9
Summary
Indictment for embezzlement; from Jenkins superior court— Judge Rawlings. November 7, 1912.

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

Opinion of the Court — Russell

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

Russell, J.

1. The defendant was charged with the offense of embezzlement, and it was alleged in the indictment that the funds which were embezzled belonged to two named eleemosynary or beneficial corporations. The allegation as to the corporate character of these institutions was material, and, there being no proof of incorporation, the verdict of guilty was not supported by the evidence, and a new trial should have been granted.

2. When the defendant made his statement his counsel offered to swear him and allow him to be cross-examined, waiving his constitutional right. The solicitor-general declined to cross-examine the defendant, and thereupon the court refused to allow the counsel for the accused to interrogate the defendant as a witness. Held, that this was not error. The statement of a defendant in a criminal case is not, in a technical sense, evidence. There is no provision of law by which he may become a witness. He may he cross-examined if he consents to be so cross-examined, but his agreement or offer to he cross-examined does not -impose any obligation upon the prosecution; and unless the solicitor-general accepts and acts upon the offer of the accused to be cross-examined, his counsel has no absolute right to submit him to an examination as he would a witness. The privilege of directing the attention of a defendant to a particular point, by question or suggestion, is a matter addressed to the discretion of the trial judge.

Judgment reversed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 9 cases

View all citing references →
1916: 11917: 11929: 11945: 11954: 11973: 21974: 11975: 119162026peak 1973 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Walters v. State196 S.E.2d 326 (Ga. Ct. App. 1973)
  2. Boyers v. State33 S.E.2d 251 (Ga. 1945)
  3. Walker v. State205 S.E.2d 49 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974)
  4. Scott v. State213 S.E.2d 676 (Ga. 1975)
  5. Stockton v. State92 S.E. 1019 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917)
  6. Rowell v. State195 S.E.2d 790 (Ga. Ct. App. 1973)

Most recent

  1. Scott v. State213 S.E.2d 676 (Ga. 1975)
  2. Walker v. State205 S.E.2d 49 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974)
  3. Walters v. State196 S.E.2d 326 (Ga. Ct. App. 1973)
  4. Rowell v. State195 S.E.2d 790 (Ga. Ct. App. 1973)
  5. McKibben v. State82 S.E.2d 148 (Ga. Ct. App. 1954)
  6. Boyers v. State33 S.E.2d 251 (Ga. 1945)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list