Mapp v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Indictment for manufacture of intoxicating liquor; from Douglas superior court — Judge Irwin. October 16, 1920. Paragraph 2 of the decision relates to grounds as to questions to witnesses and admissibility of testimony.
Read the full summary
Indictment for manufacture of intoxicating liquor; from Douglas superior court — Judge Irwin. October 16, 1920. Paragraph 2 of the decision relates to grounds as to questions to witnesses and admissibility of testimony. In ground 2 it is stated that the judge “ erred in his own motion in ruling out ” the following question of the defendant’s counsel to the sheriff, on cross-examination: “ You get it all back out of the insolvent costs and other things ? ” “ (referring to the expenses of the sheriff).” The judge inquired as to-the materiality of this question, and the defendant’s counsel said:…
1Opinion of the CourtBroyles, C. J.
1. The first ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial alleges that the court erred in not sustaining the objection of counsel for the defendant to a certain question propounded to a witness and to the answer thereto, but it is not stated in the ground what the objection was. In the same ground complaint is made that the court, on its own motion, directed the solicitor-general to ask the witness a certain question, and error is assigned upon this direction of the court and upon the admission of the answer of the witness, but the ground fails to show that any objection was made…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Adams v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1918
- Brown v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1920
- Jones v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1911
3Cited by5 opinions
- Pulliam v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1943
- Turk v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1937
- Brock v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1954
- Swain v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1955
- Tanner v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1954