From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mack v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jun 20, 1944
30 S.E.2d 795 (Ga. Ct. App. 1944)

Opinion

30532.

DECIDED JUNE 20, 1944.

Shooting at another; from Muscogee superior court — Judge Fort. March 16, 1944.

Joseph S. Ray, Aaron H. Satlof, for plaintiff in error.

Ed Wohlwender Jr., solicitor-general, contra.


1. The evidence authorized the verdict.

2. The only special ground of the motion for new trial assigns error on the admission of certain evidence. It does not appear in the record that this evidence was objected to for the reasons here urged at the time the evidence was offered, but that these reasons were urged for the first time in the amended motion for a new trial. Such reasons not appearing to have been urged before the trial judge at the time offered can not now be considered by this court. Milliken v. State, 34 Ga. App. 596 ( 130 S.E. 347); Parker v. State, 28 Ga. App. 673 ( 112 S.E. 908); Langston v. State, 153 Ga. 127 ( 111 S.E. 561); Phillips v. State, 102 Ga. 594 ( 27 S.E. 699); Atlanta Life Ins. Co. v. Jackson, 34 Ga. App. 555 (2) ( 130 S.E. 378); Lamkin v. Clary, 103 Ga. 631 ( 30 S.E. 596); Grace v. McKinney, 112 Ga. 425 (2) ( 37 S.E. 737).

3. The reasons urged in the objection at the time of the introduction of the evidence, and then and there passed on by the trial court, were not mentioned or argued in the defendant's brief, and will be considered as abandoned.

Judgment affirmed. Broyles, C. J., and Gardner, J., concur.

DECIDED JUNE 20, 1944.


Summaries of

Mack v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jun 20, 1944
30 S.E.2d 795 (Ga. Ct. App. 1944)
Case details for

Mack v. State

Case Details

Full title:MACK v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Jun 20, 1944

Citations

30 S.E.2d 795 (Ga. Ct. App. 1944)
71 Ga. App. 303

Citing Cases

Battle v. State

A reason not appearing to have been urged before the trial judge at the time the evidence was offered, nor…

Austin v. State

It is contended that the admission of the warrant over this objection was material, prejudicial and hurtful…