Anderson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Anderson v. State

122 S.E. 624, 32 Ga. App. 71, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 263

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 16, 1924

Docket15304

StatusPublished

This text of 122 S.E. 624 (Anderson 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

Anderson v. State, 122 S.E. 624, 32 Ga. App. 71, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 263 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. Eor no reason alleged does the excerpt from the charge, of which complaint is made, require the grant of a new trial, when it is considered in connection with the facts of the case. See Belcher v. State, 25 Ga. App. 493 (103 S. E. 852).

2. There was direct evidence that in the smoke-house of the defendant, at his residence, there was found a fifty-gallon barrel of mash which was “fermented and ready to make liquor,” and which if drunk to excess would produce intoxication. The conviction of the defendant did not, therefore, depend entirely upon circumstantial evidence, and it was not error, in the absence of a timely and appropriate written request, for the judge to omit to instruct the jury upon the law of circumstantial evidence.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the motion for a new trial was properly overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. Eor no reason alleged does the excerpt from the charge, of which complaint is made, require the grant of a new trial, when it is considered in connection with the facts of the case. See Belcher v. State, 25 Ga. App. 493 (103 S. E. 852).

2. There was direct evidence that in the smoke-house of the defendant, at his residence, there was found a fifty-gallon barrel of mash which was “fermented and ready to make liquor,” and which if drunk to excess would produce intoxication. The conviction of the defendant did not, therefore, depend entirely upon circumstantial evidence, and it was not error, in the absence of a timely and appropriate written request, for the judge to omit to instruct the jury upon the law of circumstantial evidence.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the motion for a new trial was properly overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 S.E. 624, 32 Ga. App. 71, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-state-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack