Legal Opinion

Smith v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided November 14, 1922No. 13929PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBloodworth, J.

The ground of the amendment to the motion for a hew trial numbered 3 is too indefinite and incomplete to be understandable'within itself, and raises no question for determination by this court.

This court cannot say as a matter of law that the trial judge abused his discretion when he refused to “pass the case,” under the statement made to him by counsel for accused as to the condition of the prosecuting witness. Lyles v. State, 130 Ga. 294 (1, 2) (60 S. E. 578).

A ground of the motion for a new trial alleges that “ the court committed error in permitting the State’s prosecuting witness to come…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. O'Dell v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
  2. Lyles v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1908
  3. Washington v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Kiser v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1930
  2. Kiser v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1931
  3. Buchanan v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1940

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API