Legal Opinion

Williams v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided March 7, 1919No. 10225PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Accusation, of misdemeanor; from city court of Blackshéar— Judge Mitchell. October 26, 1918.

1Opinion of the CourtBroyles, P. J.

1. The fact that a juror is related within' the prohibited degree to a ^witness for the State in a criminal prosecution does not render him incompetent to serve as a juror upon the trial of the case. Athinson v. State, 112 Ga. 411 (37 S. E. 747) ; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Mead, 22 Ga. App. 70 (95 S. E. 476); 16 R. C. L. 259, § 77.

'(a) The contention of the accused, as set forth in his motion for a new' trial, was that the witness who was related to one of the jurors was the “prosecuting witness,” and-“to all intents and purposes was in fact the prosecutor in said case.” Even if this…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Atkinson v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
  2. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. MeadCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1918

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Taylor v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1979
  2. Mars v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1926
  3. Caswell v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1921
  4. Jones v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1942
  5. Hamlin v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1921

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

Powered by the Exa API