Bell v. State
This text of 84 S.E. 150 (Bell 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.
Opinion
1. There being no evidence in this ease to establish the fact (necessary for a legal conviction) that it was the defendant who had been on a public highway in an intoxicated condition “manifested by boisterousriess, indecent acting,” etc., it was. error for the trial judge to refuse to grant a new trial.
2. A court’s refusal to direct a verdict is never a ground for the assignment of error. The trial judge may, in a criminal case, direct a verdict whenever, after all the State’s evidence is in, a verdict of acquittal is the only legal finding possible; but while this is true, his refusal to direct a verdict of “not guilty” is not a proper ground for an assignment of error in the reviewing court. The only question which this court can consider is whether, upon an examination of the evidence as a whole, including the statement of the accused, there was any evidence to sustain the verdict of guilty. Nalley v. State, 11 Ga. App. 15 (74 S. E. 567); Harvey v. State, 8 Ga. App. 660 (70 S. E. 141).
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
84 S.E. 150, 15 Ga. App. 718, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-state-gactapp-1915.