Case ID: ga-app_34/html/0514-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Broyles, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

16732.
    Hill v. The State.
    Decided November 10, 1925.
    Conviction of making liquor; from Haralson superior court-judge Irwin. June 24, 1925.
    
      M. J. Head, Smith & Watson, for plaintiff in error.
    
      E. S. Griffith, solicitor-general, contra.
   Broyles, C. J.

Upon the trial of this case and while the solicitor-general

was making the concluding argument to the jury he used the following words: “I had no idea that they would put the character of such a man as Luther Hill [the accused] in evidence. If I had, I would have had twenty men here to prove his character by.” Counsel for the defendant promptly moved for a mistrial, on the grounds that the statement was unauthorized by the evidence and was highly prejudicial to the accused. The court denied the motion, and failed to rebuke the solicitor-general or to instruct the jury not to consider the statement, and the statement was not withdrawn by the solicitor-general. Held: The refusal to declare a mistrial was reversible error, and the court therefore erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.