Case ID: ga-app_32/html/0792-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Luke, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

15720.
    BEDSOLE v. THE STATE.
    Improper argument of counsel for the prosecution is not cause for a new trial in this case, the verdict being demanded by the evidence.
    Decided October 9, 1924.
    Accusation of violating liquor law; from' city court of Fort Gaines — Judge Turnipseed. June 9, 1924.
    From the 3d special ground of the motion for a new trial it appears that the solicitor of the city court, in his argument to the jury, said: “The defendant has made no statement in this matter; he does not deny that he solicited orders for liquor. He could have gone up there on the stand and denied it.” The defendant’s counsel objected to this argument and moved for a mistrial, and asked that the solicitor be rebuked. The court overruled this motion and charged the jury on the subject as follows: “In all criminal trials the defendant has a right to make or not make to the court and jury a statement in his behalf. If the defendant sees fit to make no statement, he is acting within his rights, and such failure should not be considered against him.”
    
      E. B. King, for plaintiff in error.
    P. G. King, solicitor, contra.
   Luke, J.

1. The 3d special ground of the motion for a new trial alleges error because of improper remarks of the solicitor-general in his argument to the jury; and counsel for plaintiff in error, in support of this ground, cites the cases of Minor v. State, 120 Ga. 490 (48 S. E. 189), and Cæsar v. State, 125 Ga. 6 (53 S. E. 815). The case under consideration differs from the cases cited, in that the evidence in this ease absolutely demanded the verdict returned; and therefore the improper argument of the solicitor-general could not and did not injure the defendant’s cause. See Hagar v. State, 71 Ga. 167, and citations.

2. The other grounds of the motion are without merit, and the judgment is

Affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworih, J., concur.