Cantrell v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cantrell v. State

38 S.E.2d 59, 73 Ga. App. 813, 1946 Ga. App. LEXIS 417

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 18, 1946

Docket31217.

StatusPublished

This text of 38 S.E.2d 59 (Cantrell 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

Cantrell v. State, 38 S.E.2d 59, 73 Ga. App. 813, 1946 Ga. App. LEXIS 417 (Ga. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the commission of an unlawful act. He failed to introduce any evidence, but made a statement to the jury denying that he was guilty of the offense charged and stating that he was not present at the scene of the homicide. However, a witness for the State positively identified him as the man who had committed the homicide, while driving an automobile at a rate of speed greater than 55 miles an hour on a public highway in the City of Atlanta, Georgia.

Other evidence in the case amply authorized the jury to find that the death of the victim named in the indictment was caused by the defendant’s unlawful operation of the automobile as above stated, and that the killing was not intentionally committed. The overruling of the motion for a new trial, containing the general grounds only, was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the commission of an unlawful act. He failed to introduce any evidence, but made a statement to the jury denying that he was guilty of the offense charged and stating that he was not present at the scene of the homicide. However, a witness for the State positively identified him as the man who had committed the homicide, while driving an automobile at a rate of speed greater than 55 miles an hour on a public highway in the City of Atlanta, Georgia.

Other evidence in the case amply authorized the jury to find that the death of the victim named in the indictment was caused by the defendant’s unlawful operation of the automobile as above stated, and that the killing was not intentionally committed. The overruling of the motion for a new trial, containing the general grounds only, was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 S.E.2d 59, 73 Ga. App. 813, 1946 Ga. App. LEXIS 417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cantrell-v-state-gactapp-1946.