TRIAL PRACTICE--DUTY OF THE COURT TO INSTRUCT THE JURY IN THE ABSENCE OF A REQUEST FOR INSTRUCTIONS

Authors

Abstract

A series of cases recently decided in Georgia brings to mind the interesting question as to whether the court is bound to give instructions upon the law of the case in the absence of a specific request therefor. See Slocumb v. State, 157 Ga. 131; Fort v. State, 121 S. E. 128; Hatfield v. State, 121 S. E. 129; Walker v. State, 121 S. E. 130; Bul­lard v. State, 121 S. E. 130; Coney v. State, 121 S. E. 132, and Riggs v. State (1924) 121 S. E. 142. In none of these cases was there a specific re­quest to charge upon the matters to which exception was taken. Four were reversed and three were affirmed.

Recommended Citation

TRIAL PRACTICE--DUTY OF THE COURT TO INSTRUCT THE JURY IN THE ABSENCE OF A REQUEST FOR INSTRUCTIONS, 23 Mich. L. Rev. 276 (1925).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol23/iss3/7