Acker v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Acker v. State

38 S.E.2d 64, 73 Ga. App. 754, 1946 Ga. App. LEXIS 406

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 25, 1946

Docket31196.

StatusPublished

This text of 38 S.E.2d 64 (Acker v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Acker v. State, 38 S.E.2d 64, 73 Ga. App. 754, 1946 Ga. App. LEXIS 406 (Ga. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Gardner, J.

1. As to the general grounds, counsel for the defendant contend that, since the whisky which was found by the officers had been distilled, before the officers. arrived, from the unit of the distillery which the officers found steaming, and since *756 there had been no distillation of whisky in the other unit, there was no sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict of guilty. We do not think that under the facts of this case this position is tenable. It clearly appears from the evidence that each unit was a part of the entire distillery. Indeed, the State’s evidence shows that this type of distillery often consists of “half a dozen” units. The jury were authorized to find, from all the facts and circumstances of this case, that the defendant beyond peradventure was' operating the distillery. The defendant in his statement even admitted that he was at the still site and that he fled upon seeing the officers approaching.

The defendant introduced no evidence. In his statement he contended that he merely went to the still site to obtain a drink of whisky, and that he did not participate in its manufacture. There is no merit in the general grounds.

2. As to the special ground, under all the facts and circumstances of this case, it may be conceded that the statement of the defendant to the officers as to the ownership of the still may not have been a plenary confession. But, even in that event, we can not see that any harm resulted to the defendant from the court’s charge upon confessions.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Gardner, J.

1. As to the general grounds, counsel for the defendant contend that, since the whisky which was found by the officers had been distilled, before the officers. arrived, from the unit of the distillery which the officers found steaming, and since *756 there had been no distillation of whisky in the other unit, there was no sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict of guilty. We do not think that under the facts of this case this position is tenable. It clearly appears from the evidence that each unit was a part of the entire distillery. Indeed, the State’s evidence shows that this type of distillery often consists of “half a dozen” units. The jury were authorized to find, from all the facts and circumstances of this case, that the defendant beyond peradventure was' operating the distillery. The defendant in his statement even admitted that he was at the still site and that he fled upon seeing the officers approaching.

The defendant introduced no evidence. In his statement he contended that he merely went to the still site to obtain a drink of whisky, and that he did not participate in its manufacture. There is no merit in the general grounds.

2. As to the special ground, under all the facts and circumstances of this case, it may be conceded that the statement of the defendant to the officers as to the ownership of the still may not have been a plenary confession. But, even in that event, we can not see that any harm resulted to the defendant from the court’s charge upon confessions.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 S.E.2d 64, 73 Ga. App. 754, 1946 Ga. App. LEXIS 406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acker-v-state-gactapp-1946.