Crider v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Townsend, Judge.
It is not a ground for continuance that some of the jurors impanelled to try the second case against the defendant had been present at a part of the first trial. This point should have been made by a challenge to the polls. Greeson v. State, 97 Ga. App. 248 (1) (102 S. E. 2d 506); Gibbons v. State, 24 Ga. App. 130 (1) (99 S. E. 894); Daniels v. State, 58 Ga. App. 599 (199 S. E. 572); Humphries v. State, 100 Ga. 260 (28 S. E. 25).
In order to construe certain testimony to which the defendant objected as meaning anything at all, it must be taken to mean that the witness testified…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Daniels v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1938
- McClung v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1950
- Humphries v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
- Hixon v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1908
- Greeson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1958
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Wright v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1980
- Davis v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1977
- Carver v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1992