TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

White v. State

White v. State, 182 S.E. 60 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
October 18, 1935
Docket
No. 24963
Judges
Broyles
Citations
182 S.E. 6052 Ga. App. 91935 Ga. App. LEXIS 8

Opinion of the Court — Broyles

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The only special grounds of the motion for a new trial are as follows: “1st. Because upon the trial of the said stated case the court erred in the following point and particular, that when the jury trying the said ease came into the courtroom after having considered the case for some time, and in open court requested a new charge by the court on and as to the different punishments that could be passed upon the said defendant, that the court instructed the jury in the punishment that could be imposed for the offense charged in the indictment, except the charge and instruction that the jury could find the defendant not guilty, and that if they did so find the defendant not guilty that he would be acquitted, and that the said jury was not so charged at this time that they could so find the defendant not guilty. 2nd. That this failure so to charge the jury trying the case, as above set out, was tantamount to an expression of opinion by the court to the jury, and so was prejudicial to the said defendant in the case, and was error.” Since no exception is taken to .the original charge, it will' be presumed that the court there 'correctly instructed the jury on their right to find the defendant not guilty of the offense charged, and to acquit him, if from the evidence in the case they had .a reasonable doubt of his guilt; and it appearing from the ground that the jury desired an additional charge only “as'to the different punishments [italics ours] that could be passed .upon the said defendant,” it was not error for the judge to limit his additional instructions to the punishment that could b*e given the defendant, and to omit therefrom any reference to the defendant’s acquittal. It follows that the special grounds of the motion are without merit.

*10 2. The evidence as to the guilt of the accused, while in conflict, authorized his conviction of the offense of involuntary manslaughter in the commission of an unlawful act, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites 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