Pyles v. State
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Pottle, J.
1. An instruction to the jury in a criminal case, that, where the defense of alibi is relied on, the burden is on the accused to establish this defense “to your satisfaction,” is not erroneous, when, in immediate connection therewith, the jury are instructed to consider the testimony in reference to the special defense along with all of the evidence in the case, and that, in order to convict, the jury must be satisfied of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, after considering all of the evidence and the prisoner’s statement. The omission of the word “reasonable” before satisfaction is not reversible error. See Ledford v. State, 75 Ga. 856 ; Harris v. State, 120 Ga. 167 ( 47 S. E. 520 ). In Harrison v. State, 83 Ga. 130 ( 9 S. E. 542 ), the Supreme Court has laid down the rule touching alibi which it would be well for the trial judges to follow; but the charge in the present case is not erroneous when tested by that decision. Nor is the instruction here complained of subject to the objections pointed out in Raysor v. State, 132 Ga. 237 ( 63 S. E. 786 ).
2. The evidence fully authorized the verdict. Judgment affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.