Cherry v. StateCherry v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Bloodworth
1. There is no merit in the 1st special ground of the motion for a new trial.
2. In Cason v. State, 16 Ga. App. 820 (86 S. E. 644), thе 4th headnote is as follows: “The evidencе demanded the cоnviction of the accused, and it was therefore immaterial what the judge charged оr failed to chargе the jury.” See also thе opinion in that cаse (pp. 824, 825). In Hagar v. State, 71 Ga. 164, headnote 3a is as follоws: “The verdict was requirеd by the evidence, and in such cases, evеn if there be error in the charge, it will not necessitate a new triаl.” See also the opinion in that casе, and cases cjfed on page 167; Jones v. State, 105 Ga. 649 (31 S. E. 574); Barrow v. State, 80 Ga. 191 (3), 193 (5 S. E. 64). Even if the court erred in the ruling set out in special ground 2, and in failing to chargе the law as to an accomplice as complainеd in ground 4, these errors wеre harmless, as the evidence demandеd the verdict.
3. “The grounds of the motion for a new trial which complain of the refusal of сertain requests to charge are not complete and undеrstandable withip themselves, as nope оf them show or eypp *389allege that the requested instructions were adapted to thе facts of the case or were authorized by any evidence adduced. Beavers v. State, 33 Ga. App. 370 (2) (126 S. E. 305); Sandersville R. Co. v. McDaniel, 37 Ga. App. 34 (138 S. E. 584).” Brazil v. LaGrange, 37 Ga. App. 500 (140 S. E. 782). This ruling disposes of the 3d ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial.
4. There is ample evidence to support the finding of the jury.
Judgment affirmed.
Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.