TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Moulton v. State

Moulton v. State, 89 S.E. 341 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 26, 1916
Docket
No. 7365
Judges
Broyles
Citations
89 S.E. 34118 Ga. App. 2851916 Ga. App. LEXIS 297
Cited by 6
Summary
Indictment for seduction; from Early superior court — Judge Worrill. March 1, 1916.

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

Opinion of the Court — Broyles

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

Broyles, J.

1. In view of the very slight degree of diligence shown to have been exercised by the defendant in endeavoring to secure the attendance of the witness referred to in his motion for a continuance, and' *286 of the fact that he did not state in the motion, as required by section 987 of the Penal Code, that he expected to be able to procure the testimony of the witness at the next term of the court, there was no error in overruling the motion.

Decided June 26, 1916. Indictment for seduction; from Early superior court — Judge Worrill. March 1, 1916. W. I. Geer, for plaintiff in error. B. T. Gastellow, solicitor-general, R. R. Arnold, contra.

2. The reopening of a case is always a matter within the sound discretion, of the trial judge. In this case it is not shown that the judge abused that discretion in refusing to reopen the ease for the purpose of receiving the testimony of a witness for the defense who had just arrived, when the jury had been out for three or four hours considering their verdict.

3. One who is charged with seduction, and who is found guilty of fornication only, will not be heard to eomplain of rulings upon the trial which could have been prejudicial to him only in the event of his having been convicted of the offense of seduction.

4. The verdict was supported by the evidence, and there was no error in refusing a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

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 →
1930: 11946: 11954: 11957: 11980: 11981: 119302026peak 1930 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Roberts277 S.E.2d 644 (Ga. 1981)
  2. Carr v. State98 S.E.2d 231 (Ga. Ct. App. 1957)
  3. Roberts v. State151 S.E. 240 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930)
  4. Roberts v. State274 S.E.2d 772 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)
  5. Bowman v. State85 S.E.2d 66 (Ga. Ct. App. 1954)
  6. Tyree v. State39 S.E.2d 441 (Ga. Ct. App. 1946)

Most recent

  1. State v. Roberts277 S.E.2d 644 (Ga. 1981)
  2. Roberts v. State274 S.E.2d 772 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)
  3. Carr v. State98 S.E.2d 231 (Ga. Ct. App. 1957)
  4. Bowman v. State85 S.E.2d 66 (Ga. Ct. App. 1954)
  5. Tyree v. State39 S.E.2d 441 (Ga. Ct. App. 1946)
  6. Roberts v. State151 S.E. 240 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930)

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