Barlow v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Barlow v. State

243 S.E.2d 328, 145 Ga. App. 93, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 1873

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 28, 1978

Docket54941

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 243 S.E.2d 328 (Barlow 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

Barlow v. State, 243 S.E.2d 328, 145 Ga. App. 93, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 1873 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Quillian, Presiding Judge.

The defendant was charged with 2 misdemeanor offenses: (1) operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants; (2) obstructing an officer in that "said accused did flee on foot from said officer as said officer was attempting to place the accused under lawful arrest for the offense of driving under the influence.” He was acquitted of the first charge — driving under the influence — but convicted of the second. On appeal to this court he contends that the verdict on which the judgment is based is void for inconsistency or repugnancy. Held:

In ascertaining whether a repugnancy exists the determinative factor is "whether the acquittal of one charge necessarily includes a finding against a fact that is essential to conviction for the other charge.” Conroy v. State, 231 Ga. 472, 475 (202 SE2d 398).

It is evident that one may arrest another based on probable cause. Garrison v. State, 122 Ga. App. 757 (178 SE2d 744); Pate v. State, 137 Ga. App. 677 (225 SE2d 95). It is not necessary that the accused be found guilty, for the arrest may still be lawful. That being true, and since there is nothing to show that probable cause was not present, there is no inconsistency in the verdict as a matter of law. Since there is no transcript we must assume there was no inconsistency as a matter of fact.

Judgment affirmed.

Webb and McMurray, JJ., concur.

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

Quillian, Presiding Judge.

The defendant was charged with 2 misdemeanor offenses: (1) operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants; (2) obstructing an officer in that "said accused did flee on foot from said officer as said officer was attempting to place the accused under lawful arrest for the offense of driving under the influence.” He was acquitted of the first charge — driving under the influence — but convicted of the second. On appeal to this court he contends that the verdict on which the judgment is based is void for inconsistency or repugnancy. Held:

In ascertaining whether a repugnancy exists the determinative factor is "whether the acquittal of one charge necessarily includes a finding against a fact that is essential to conviction for the other charge.” Conroy v. State, 231 Ga. 472, 475 (202 SE2d 398).

It is evident that one may arrest another based on probable cause. Garrison v. State, 122 Ga. App. 757 (178 SE2d 744); Pate v. State, 137 Ga. App. 677 (225 SE2d 95). It is not necessary that the accused be found guilty, for the arrest may still be lawful. That being true, and since there is nothing to show that probable cause was not present, there is no inconsistency in the verdict as a matter of law. Since there is no transcript we must assume there was no inconsistency as a matter of fact.

Judgment affirmed.

Webb and McMurray, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 S.E.2d 328, 145 Ga. App. 93, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 1873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barlow-v-state-gactapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack