Ballard v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ballard v. State

32 S.E.2d 312, 71 Ga. App. 782, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 222

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 4, 1944

Docket30651.

StatusPublished

This text of 32 S.E.2d 312 (Ballard 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

Ballard v. State, 32 S.E.2d 312, 71 Ga. App. 782, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 222 (Ga. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

Tile' defendant- was convicted of the 'offense of possessing in Carroll County, Georgia, non-tax-paid, whisky. The defendant in his .statement to.the jury admitted having..a small quantity, of whisky in his dwelling house, hut denied that it was non-tax-paid liquor. Several officers testified ‘tha;t' they found 'the whisky in the defendants 'hou’se *783 and. that it was non-tax-paid whisky. It is true that on being cross-examined they admitted that they could not tell that it was non-tax paid liquor; but, on being reexamined by the solicitor of the court, they again stated that it was non-tax-paid whisky. While this evidence of the officers on the crucial point in the case was weak and unsatisfactory, this court can not hold that the jury were not authorized to believe that part of their testimony that stated that the whisky was non-tax paid whisky. The two excerpts from the charge of the court, complained of, when considered in the light of the entire charge and the facts of the case, show no cause for a reversal of the judgment. The overruling of the motion for a new trial was not error.

Decided December 4, 1944. Willis Smith, for plaintiff in error. Earl Staples, solicitor, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

Tile' defendant- was convicted of the 'offense of possessing in Carroll County, Georgia, non-tax-paid, whisky. The defendant in his .statement to.the jury admitted having..a small quantity, of whisky in his dwelling house, hut denied that it was non-tax-paid liquor. Several officers testified ‘tha;t' they found 'the whisky in the defendants 'hou’se *783 and. that it was non-tax-paid whisky. It is true that on being cross-examined they admitted that they could not tell that it was non-tax paid liquor; but, on being reexamined by the solicitor of the court, they again stated that it was non-tax-paid whisky. While this evidence of the officers on the crucial point in the case was weak and unsatisfactory, this court can not hold that the jury were not authorized to believe that part of their testimony that stated that the whisky was non-tax paid whisky. The two excerpts from the charge of the court, complained of, when considered in the light of the entire charge and the facts of the case, show no cause for a reversal of the judgment. The overruling of the motion for a new trial was not error.

Decided December 4, 1944. Willis Smith, for plaintiff in error. Earl Staples, solicitor, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 S.E.2d 312, 71 Ga. App. 782, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ballard-v-state-gactapp-1944.