Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

MITCHELL v. THE STATE.

JORDAN, Presiding Judge.

In this appeal from a conviction and sentence for uttering a forged check error is asserted solely on instructions to the jury inviting attention to the interest of the accused in the outcome of the prosecution as a matter for consideration in determining the degree of credibility to be accorded to his testimony. It is conceded that the instructions as given substantially follow the suggested instructions published in Hudson v. State, 108 Ga. App. 192, 199 ( 132 S.E.2d 508, 100 ALR2d 1395), except for the omission of the next to the last sentence. These instructions are in accord with the general rule, although there is authority in some outside jurisdictions to the contrary. See 23A CJS 646, Criminal Law, § 1263. Having given careful consideration to the reasons urged by the appellant for declaring the instructions as given in the present case to be harmful error, including the cases relied upon from other jurisdictions, we adhere to the views expressed in the Hudson case, supra.

Judgment affirmed. Eberhardt and Pannell, JJ., concur.

SUBMITTED JANUARY 9, 1970 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1970 — REHEARING DENIED MARCH 13, 1970.
Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MITCHELL v. STATE
(Feb 26, 1970)