Hammond v. State

Hammond v. State, 179 S.E. 841 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935)

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided: May 3, 1935
Docket: No. 24706
Judges: Umkry
Citations: 179 S.E. 84151 Ga. App. 2251935 Ga. App. LEXIS 636

Cited by 6

Opinion of the Court — Umkry

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

G-umKRY, J.

The defendant was indicted for the possession of intoxicating liquor. The solicitor in liis argument to the jury said: “there was [is?] bootlegging all over the country and the defendant ought to be convicted.” The counsel for defendant thereupon moved the court for the grant of a mistrial for this prejudicial remark and the motion was overruled. The court did not rebuke counsel or tell the jury to disregard this statement. Held: While counsel may “under the fullest inspiration of excited genius give vent to their glowing conceptions, in thoughts that breathe and words that burn” (Berry v. State, 10 Ga. 511 ), yet it is important that the verdict of a jury should be based only on legal evidence properly submitted to them; and remarks of counsel, not in evidence nor drawn from evidence, irrelevant and immaterial-to the vital issue, and used ostensibly only for the purpose of prejudicing the minds of the jury against the defendant, where a motion for mistrial is made, and there is no rebuke of counsel by the court and no charge to the jury to disregard such statement, require the grant of a new trial. The fact that bootlegging was occurring all over the country, if such is a fact, could have no possible bearing upon the question of whether the defendant was in possession of intoxicating liquors. We therefore think a new trial should be granted. See Washington v. State, 87 Ga. 12 ( 13 S. E. 131 ); Fair v. State, 168 Ga. 409 ( 148 S. E. 144 ); Ivey v. State, 113 Ga. 1062 ( 39 S. E. 423 , 54 L. R. A. 959); Hudson v. State, 101 Ga. 520 ( 28 S. E. 1010 ); Bryan v. State, 36 Ga. App. 656 ( 137 S. E. 797 ).

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Price Edwards, for plaintiff in error. Hal C. Hutchens, solicitor-general, S. W. Ragsdale, contra.

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 →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Pulliam v. State224 S.E.2d 8 (Ga. 1976)
Smith v. State41 S.E.2d 541 (Ga. Ct. App. 1947)
Brown v. State138 S.E.2d 741 (Ga. Ct. App. 1964)
Cochran v. State242 S.E.2d 735 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978)
Lober v. State3 S.E.2d 597 (Ga. Ct. App. 1939)
Cooper v. State187 S.E. 889 (Ga. Ct. App. 1936)

Most recent

Cochran v. State242 S.E.2d 735 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978)
Pulliam v. State224 S.E.2d 8 (Ga. 1976)
Brown v. State138 S.E.2d 741 (Ga. Ct. App. 1964)
Smith v. State41 S.E.2d 541 (Ga. Ct. App. 1947)
Lober v. State3 S.E.2d 597 (Ga. Ct. App. 1939)
Cooper v. State187 S.E. 889 (Ga. Ct. App. 1936)

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 6

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Ivey v. State, 54 L.R.A. 959 (Ga. 1901)	33
	Washington v. State, 13 S.E. 131 (Ga. 1891)	20
	Hudson v. State, 28 S.E. 1010 (Ga. 1897)	18
	Fair v. State, 148 S.E. 144 (Ga. 1929)	13
	Bryan v. State, 137 S.E. 797 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927)	4
	Berry v. State, 10 Ga. 511 (1851)	246

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list