green
Positive treatment
3.9 score
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Boyt v. State
Duane, The Virginia Presumption of Fraudulent Intent in Bad Check Cases, 31 VBA News Journal No. 3, n. 43 (June/July 2005) (commentaries accompanying several federal pattern jury instructions recommend against their routine use, instead recommending that the matters covered be handled by argument of counsel). 46 OCGA § 17-8-57 (“It is error for any judge in any criminal case, during its progress or in his charge to the jury, to express or intimate his opinion as to what has or has not been proved or as to the guilt of the accused”); Moody v. State, 114 Ga. 449, 450 (2) ( 40 SE 242 ) (1901…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Watson v. State
Co. v. Papot, 67 Ga. 675 (8); Moody v. State, 114 Ga. 449, 450 ( 40 SE 242 ); Benefield v. Benefield, 224 Ga. 208 (1) ( 160 SE2d 895 ) and cit.; McLarty v. Emhart Corp., 227 Ga. 104, 107 ( 179 SE2d 46 ).
MOODY
v.
State
v.
State
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Dec 19, 1901.
Bunn & Trawick and Sanders & Davis, for plaintiff in error., W. T. Roberts, solicitor-general, contra.
Lumpkin.
Cited by 16 opinions | Published
1. This case, as to the first point ruled above, is directly within the principle laid down in Fletcher v. State, 85 Ga. 666.
2. The charge dealt within the second headnote was obviously erroneous. Whether or not given circumstances are entitled to any weight is purely a matter for the jury. ' As the judge instructed the jury that they must give weight to certain circumstances, and as the same tended to show the guilt of the accused, the charge was in this respect necessarily prejudicial to him.
Judgment reversed.