Cannon v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cannon v. State

32 S.E.2d 124, 71 Ga. App. 757, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 212

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 18, 1944

Docket30614.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 32 S.E.2d 124 (Cannon 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

Cannon v. State, 32 S.E.2d 124, 71 Ga. App. 757, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 212 (Ga. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinions

Broyles, C. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) After the-disposal of counts 2 and 3, the only charge before the court and jury was that the defendant had sold distilled spirits and alcohol as a retail dealer, without first obtaining a license from the State Revenue Commissioner. The evidence adduced to show the guilt, of the accused on count 1 was wholly circumstantial, and was insufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of his-guilt, and it failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that he had sold distilled spirits or alcohol. The cases of Thomas v. State, 65 Ga. App. 749 (16 S. E. 2d, 447), and Martin v. State, 68 Ga. App. 169 (22 S. E. 2d, 193), cited in behalf of the defendant in error, are distinguished by their facts from this case. The verdict was-contrary to law and the evidence; and the overruling of the certiorari was error. Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre, J., concurs.

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

Broyles, C. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) After the-disposal of counts 2 and 3, the only charge before the court and jury was that the defendant had sold distilled spirits and alcohol as a retail dealer, without first obtaining a license from the State Revenue Commissioner. The evidence adduced to show the guilt, of the accused on count 1 was wholly circumstantial, and was insufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of his-guilt, and it failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that he had sold distilled spirits or alcohol. The cases of Thomas v. State, 65 Ga. App. 749 (16 S. E. 2d, 447), and Martin v. State, 68 Ga. App. 169 (22 S. E. 2d, 193), cited in behalf of the defendant in error, are distinguished by their facts from this case. The verdict was-contrary to law and the evidence; and the overruling of the certiorari was error. Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 S.E.2d 124, 71 Ga. App. 757, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cannon-v-state-gactapp-1944.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack