Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

13 Ga. App. 709

Manning v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided October 29, 1913

Court of Appeals of Georgia · decided 1913-10-29

<p>The language of the solicitor-general in concluding the argument for the State was improper, highly inflammatory in character, and calculated to prejudice the jury against the defendant, and was not warranted by the evidence. The trial judge should have declared a mistrial, or have strongly admonished the jury that the language was improper and that they should disregard it in their deliberations.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““These blind tigers are running around all over the country, sending souls to hell, and have no respect for Jesus Christ or woman, and you ought to stop that kind of stuff. Everything you hear is people all over the country talking about blind tigers, and I ask you not to tolerate this stuff, and I ask you to help me convict them.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including 290 Ga. App. 651 - Cantrell v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1913-10-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently March 2008

14 state decisions

401913192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Hill, C. J.

¶1On the trial of one for the offense of selling liquor, the solicitor-general, in closing his argument, used the following language: “These blind tigers are running around all over the country, sending souls to hell, and have no respect for Jesus Christ or woman, and you ought to stop that kind of stuff. Everything you hear is people all over the country talking about blind tigers, and I ask you not to tolerate this stuff, and I ask you to help me convict them.” The attorney for the accused objected to this language, and moved the court for a mistrial. Unquestionably the language used by the solicitor-general was improper, and the court should have declared a mistrial, or should have admonished the jury that the language was improper and not to regard it or give it any weight in their deliberations. The case is a close one on the *710evidence, and for this reason we more readily grant a new trial. It was not a fair inference, from the evidence, that the defendant was a "blind tiger” as defined by the Supreme Court. Only one sale was proved, and that by a witness who probably had ill will towards the accused. Judgment reversed.

/13/gaapp/709 · .json · Public domain