Butts v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Butts v. State

82 S.E. 377, 14 Ga. App. 815, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 465

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 21, 1914

Docket5736

StatusPublished

This text of 82 S.E. 377 (Butts 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

Butts v. State, 82 S.E. 377, 14 Ga. App. 815, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 465 (Ga. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

No error of law is complained of, and though the evidence largely preponderates in favor of the defendant’s innocence, the credibility of the witnesses was a matter addressed solely to the discretion of the trial jury, and the exercise of this prerogative of the jury is not subject to review. Jolly v. State, 5 Ga. App. 454 (63 S. E. 520). Even the probability that the sale was incomplete, upon the principle announced in Decker v. Gwinn, 95 Ga. 518 (20 S. E. 240), was eliminated by the testimony of the prosecutor, as well as by the fact that the theory that the sale was incomplete because of the agreement that the purchase-price should be paid in advance of getting the whisky is flatly contradicted by the defendant in his statement in his own behalf, in which he said that the prosecuting witness stole the whisky.

Judgment affirmed.

Roan, J., absent.

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

Russell, C. J.

No error of law is complained of, and though the evidence largely preponderates in favor of the defendant’s innocence, the credibility of the witnesses was a matter addressed solely to the discretion of the trial jury, and the exercise of this prerogative of the jury is not subject to review. Jolly v. State, 5 Ga. App. 454 (63 S. E. 520). Even the probability that the sale was incomplete, upon the principle announced in Decker v. Gwinn, 95 Ga. 518 (20 S. E. 240), was eliminated by the testimony of the prosecutor, as well as by the fact that the theory that the sale was incomplete because of the agreement that the purchase-price should be paid in advance of getting the whisky is flatly contradicted by the defendant in his statement in his own behalf, in which he said that the prosecuting witness stole the whisky.

Judgment affirmed.

Roan, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 S.E. 377, 14 Ga. App. 815, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butts-v-state-gactapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack