Branch v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Branch v. State

166 S.E. 685, 46 Ga. App. 66, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 51

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 18, 1932

Docket22527

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 166 S.E. 685 (Branch 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

Branch v. State, 166 S.E. 685, 46 Ga. App. 66, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 51 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Having been convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor, Prank Branch filed a motion for a new trial based solely upon the usual general grounds. The only contention made by his counsel in this court is that “the evidence does not support the verdict, . . for the reason that the whisky in question was found in the house of another party, and the only direct evidence supporting the verdict was that of the party at-whose house the whisky was found, . . an accessory, admittedly, in said case.” [67]*67The witness referred to by counsel testified unequivocally that the defendant brought the whisky to the witness’s house; that the two carried it in said house; and that witness was merely keeping the whisky for the defendant and had no interest in it.

Unquestionably “the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is sufficient to convict in a misdemeanor case.” Martin v. State, 17 Ga. App. 372 (86 S. E. 945). “In misdemeanors, the complicity of the witness goes to his credit, and the jury are to judge of his credibility from all the facts and circumstances, as in the case of other witnesses.” Parsons v. State, 43 Ga. 197.

It is perfectly apparent that the evidence supports the verdict, and that there is no merit in the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Hooper, J., concur. MacIntyre, J., not presiding.

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

Per Curiam.

Having been convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor, Prank Branch filed a motion for a new trial based solely upon the usual general grounds. The only contention made by his counsel in this court is that “the evidence does not support the verdict, . . for the reason that the whisky in question was found in the house of another party, and the only direct evidence supporting the verdict was that of the party at-whose house the whisky was found, . . an accessory, admittedly, in said case.” [67]*67The witness referred to by counsel testified unequivocally that the defendant brought the whisky to the witness’s house; that the two carried it in said house; and that witness was merely keeping the whisky for the defendant and had no interest in it.

Unquestionably “the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is sufficient to convict in a misdemeanor case.” Martin v. State, 17 Ga. App. 372 (86 S. E. 945). “In misdemeanors, the complicity of the witness goes to his credit, and the jury are to judge of his credibility from all the facts and circumstances, as in the case of other witnesses.” Parsons v. State, 43 Ga. 197.

It is perfectly apparent that the evidence supports the verdict, and that there is no merit in the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Hooper, J., concur. MacIntyre, J., not presiding.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 S.E. 685, 46 Ga. App. 66, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/branch-v-state-gactapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack