TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sims v. State

Sims v. State, 84 S.E. 976 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 20, 1915
Docket
No. 6255
Judges
Bkoyles
Citations
84 S.E. 97616 Ga. App. 2111915 Ga. App. LEXIS 546
Summary
Accusation oí bastardy; from city court of Newnan — Judge Post. December 18, 1914.

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

Opinion of the Court — Bkoyles

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

Bkoyles, J.

1. The discretion of the court in admitting legal evidence at any stage of the trial before the verdict is rendered will not be controlled, unless it appears that the defendant, in consequence of the discharge of his witnesses or from some other cause, has been injured. John v. State, 16 Ga. 200 (5); Williams v. State, 60 Ga. 368 (3) (27 Am. R. 412); Glasco v. State, 137 Ga. 336 ( 73 S. E. 578 ); Caswell v. State, 5 Ga. App. 483 (3), 486 ( 63 S. E. 566 ); Chatman v. State, 8 Ga. App. 842 (2), 845 ( 70 S. E. 188 ); Abbott v. State, 11 Ga. App. 44 (5) ( 74 S. E. 621 ); Mathis v. Colbert, 24 Ga. 384, 389 ; 38 Cyc. 1368 (V).

2. In a bastardy case, while testimony of a witness that the alleged bastard in appearance resembled the accused is not admissible (McCalman v. State, 121 Ga. 492 (5), 496, 49 S. E. 609 ), and while there'is considerable conflict in the decisions of the courts of other States upon the question of whether the bastard child may be exhibited to the jury as evidence of the relationship to the accused, the weight of authority seems to be in favor of such exhibition. 52 L. R. A. 502; State v. Smith, 54 Iowa, 104 ( 6 N. W. 153 , 37 Am. R. 192); Finnegan v. Dugan, 14 Allen (Mass.), 197; Young v. Makepeace, 103 Mass. 50, 54 ; Scott v. Donovan, 153 Mass. 378 ( 26 N. E. 871 ); Gilmanton v. Ham, 38 N. H. 108; State v. Saidell, 70 N. H. 174 ( 46 Atl. 1083 , 85 Am. St. R. 627 ); Gaunt v. State, 50 N. J. L. 490 ( 14 Atl. 600 ); State v. Woodruff, 67 N. C. 89 ; Crow v. Jordan, 49 Ohio St. 655 ( 32 N. E. 750 ); State v. Horton, 100 N. C. 443 ( 6 S. E. 238 , 6 Am. St. R. 613 ); Jones v. Jones, 45 Md. 145 ; Re Jessup, 81 Cal. 408, 418 ( 21 Pac. 796 , 22 Pac. 742, 1028 , 6 L. R. A. 594); Paulk v. State, 52 Ala. 427, 429 ; Kelly v. State, 133 Ala. 195 ( 32 So. 56 , 91. Am. St. R. 25); 1 Greenleaf, Ev. 29, § 13c (b); 1 Wigmore, Ev. 166; 2 Wigmore, Ev. § 1154 (2); Land v. State, 84 Ark. 199 ( 105 S. W. 90 , 120 Am. St. R. 25 ); Shailer v. Bulloch, 78 Conn. 65 ( 61 Atl. 65 , 112 Am. St. R. 87 ).

3. During the trial of the accused on the charge of bastardy, and after both sides had closed, and the argument of counsel had been made and the judge had delivered his charge, one of the jurors asked the court if the jury could see “the babies.” Whereupon the judge ordered the alleged bastards brought around so that the jury could see them; which was done, and the jury inspected them. No objection to this proceed *212 ing was made by the defendant, or his counsel, until after the jury had retired to make up their verdict, when counsel for the accused moved the court to declare a mistrial. This the court declined to do, and the defendant excepted: Reid, that no error was committed.

Decided April 20, 1915. Accusation oí bastardy; from city court of Newnan — Judge Post. December 18, 1914. W. G. Wright, for plaintiff in error. W. L. Stallings, solicitor, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1932: 11933: 11960: 11965: 11979: 21983: 119322026peak 1979 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Stevens v. Way307 S.E.2d 507 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983)
  2. Hunt v. State112 S.E.2d 817 (Ga. Ct. App. 1960)
  3. Posey v. State46 Ga. App. 290 (1932)
  4. Joseph v. State254 S.E.2d 383 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979)
  5. Nesbit v. State145 S.E.2d 662 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965)
  6. Kelly v. State253 S.E.2d 419 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979)

Most recent

  1. Stevens v. Way307 S.E.2d 507 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983)
  2. Joseph v. State254 S.E.2d 383 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979)
  3. Kelly v. State253 S.E.2d 419 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979)
  4. Nesbit v. State145 S.E.2d 662 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965)
  5. Hunt v. State112 S.E.2d 817 (Ga. Ct. App. 1960)
  6. Nutt v. State169 S.E. 49 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933)

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 19

DepthCaseCited by
In re the Estate of Jessup, 22 P. 742 (Cal. 1889) 104
Shailer v. Bullock, 61 A. 65 (Conn. 1905) 43
State v. Horton, 6 S.E. 238 (N.C. 1888) 28
Chatman v. State, 70 S.E. 188 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911) 15
Scott v. Donovan, 26 N.E. 871 (Mass. 1891) 15
Glasco v. State, 73 S.E. 578 (Ga. 1912) 13
Caswell v. State, 63 S.E. 566 (Ga. Ct. App. 1909) 13
Land v. State, 105 S.W. 90 (Ark. 1907) 13
State v. Smith, 6 N.W. 153 (Iowa 1880) 12
State ex rel. Stubblefield v. Woodruff, 67 N.C. 89 (1872) 28
Young v. Makepeace, 103 Mass. 50 (1869) 25
Kelly v. State, 133 Ala. 195 (1901) 24
McCalman v. State, 49 S.E. 609 (Ga. 1904) 19
Gaunt v. State, 14 A. 600 (N.J. 1888) 14
Paulk v. State, 52 Ala. 427 (1875) 11
State v. Saidell, 46 A. 1083 (N.H. 1899) 10
John v. State, 16 Ga. 200 (1854) 5
Doe ex dem. Mathis v. Roe, 24 Ga. 384 (1858) 4
Abbott v. State, 74 S.E. 621 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912) 4

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