Case ID: ga-app_28/html/0771-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Broyles, C. J. Luke, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

13600.
    PIERCE et al. v. THE STATE.
    Decided July 12, 1922.
    Indictment for larceny; from Whitfield superior court — Judge Tarver. April 19, 1922.
    
      George G. Glenn, -John G. Mitchell, for plaintiff in error.-
    
      Joseph M. Lang, solicitor-general, contra.
   Broyles, C. J.

1. Grounds 1 ,and 2 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, complaining of the admission of certain testimony, are not complete and understandable within themselves and raise no question'for the consideration of this court.

2. Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court a ground of a motion for a new trial complaining of the admission of documentary evidence will not be considered, where the evidence is not set out, either literally or in substance, in the ground, nor attached thereto as an exhibit.

3. The charge of the court is subject to the criticism that it failed to include instructions upon the presumption of the defendant’s innocence and upon the burden resting upon the State in the case. However, these errors in the charge do not require a new trial, since, under the evidence and the defendants’ statements, the verdict returned was demanded.

■Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth, concurs. Luke, J., dissents.

Luke, J.,

dissenting. I do not agree to the judgment of affirmance in this ease. In my opinion the errors assigned upon the judge’s failure to charge certain principles of Jaw in this ease are meritorious, and are such error as requires the grant of a new trial.