Thomas 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.
Russell, C. J.
1. “A charge, torn to pieces and scattered in disjointed fragments, may seem objectionable, although when put together and considered as a whole it may be perfectly sound. The full charge being in the record, what it lacks when divided is supplied when the parts are all united. United they stand, divided they fall.” Brown v. Matthews, 79 Ga. 1 ( 4 S. E. 13 ). The charge under review submits fairly to the jury the rule as to reasonable doubt, and correctly instructs them as to the scope and effect of the defendant’s statement. When one comprehensive statement of the law of reasonable doubt has been made in the charge of the court, it is not error to omit to reiterate the rule in connection with each of the several contentions suggested by the evidence. Carr v. State, 84 Ga. 250 (4), 255 ( 10 S. E. 626 ); Bowen v. State, 16 Ga. App. 179 (3), 183 ( 84 S. E. 793 ).
2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in refusing a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Accusation of sale of liquor; from city court of Carrollton— Judge Beall. October 2, 1915. S. O. Boykin, for plaintiff in. error. C. E. Boop, solicitor, contra.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.