Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

146 Ga. 190

Johnson v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided November 17, 1916

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1916-11-17

<p>Indictment for murder: Before Judge Mathews. Bibb superior court. July 4, 1916.</p>

Relies on Harrison v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1916-11-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently January 1992

13 state decisions

30191619201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 →

Pish, O. J.

¶11. The first ground of the amendment to the motion for new trial is not referred to in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error, and will therefore be considered as abandoned.

¶22. Where evidence is objected to in its entirety, some portion of which is admissible, such objection is not well taken, though some of the evidence may be inadmissible.-

¶33. The mere fact that a witness is but thirteen years of age is-not, without more, ground to exclude his testimony.

¶44. The instruction complained of in the motion for new trial on the subject of alibi is in accord with the ruling made in the case of Harrison v. State, 83 Ga. 129 (3), 132 (9 S. E. 542), and is therefore not cause for new trial.

*191November 17, 1916.Indictment for murder: Before Judge Mathews. Bibb superior court. July 4, 1916.John B. Cooper, for plaintiff in error.Clifford Walker, attorney-general, John P. Boss, solicitor-general, and Mark Bolding, contra.

¶55. A ground of a motion for new trial in the following language: “Because the court erred in not charging the jury in this case, as requested by defendant’s counsel in writing, on the law of ‘manslaughter,’ ” is too general and indefinite to present any question for decision.

¶66. No ground of the amendment to the motion for new trial, not herein-before dealt with, is meritorious.

¶77. The verdict is supported by the evidence, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

¶8Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.
/146/ga/190 · .json · Public domain