Mathis v. State
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Bloodworth, J.
1. Complaint is made of the following excerpt from the charge of the court: “The law presumes him [the defendant] to be -innocent until the contrary appears by proof which satisfies your minds beyond reasonable doubt as to his guilt; a reasonable doubt being such a doubt as an honest juror would have in a search after the truth.” In the absence of a timely and appropriate written request for fuller instructions, the foregoing charge Sufficiently informed the jury that the burden was on the State to prove the defendant guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and that the defendant “entered upon the trial with the presumption of innocence in his favor.”' Pullen v. State, 30 Ga. App. 24 (2) ( 116 S. E. 871 ), and cit.
2. In the absence of a timely and legal request therefor, it is not reversible error for the court to fail to instruct the jury “with reference to the conflicts in the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses.” Dunn v. State, 32 Ga. App. 491 (2) ( 123 S. E. 905 ) ; Wyatt v. State, 27 Ga. App. 45 (2) ( 107 S. E. 417 ).
3. The verdict is not without evidence to support it.
Judgment affirmed.
Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., ooneur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
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.