Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Chandler v. State

Chandler v. State

11 S.E.2d 103, 63 Ga. App. 304, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 79
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedOctober 5, 1940
Docket28372.
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 11 S.E.2d 103 (Chandler 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
Chandler v. State, 11 S.E.2d 103, 63 Ga. App. 304, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 79 (Ga. Ct. App. 1940).

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted, in the criminal court of Fulton County, of the offense of operating a lottery, and obtained a certiorari from the superior court. On the hearing the certiorari was overruled, and he excepted to that judgment. The evidence set forth in the petition for certiorari authorized the jury to find that the defendant, when arrested on January 18, 1939, had in his possession an adding-machine ribbon which the arresting officer testified was a lottery ribbon. The ribbon had. on it the following words and numbers: “January 18, 1939, x9, 111, 1455, 1091, 363, c4 and 243.” The evidence also showed that the defendant was intoxicated, and had just driven his automobile over a fire hose in the street. When arrested, he told the officer that if he would just charge him with drunken driving and “not put the *305 lottery against him” he would keep the officer’s car washed and waxed. Another policeman witness for the State admitted, on cross-examination, that the ribbon in question “could be some other kind of ribbon” other than a lottery ribbon. The evidence further showed that several years before the trial now under review the defendant had pleaded guilty to a lottery charge. The evidence against the defendant was wholly circumstantial, and was not sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. The court erred in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Crane v. State
180 S.E.2d 289 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1971)
Winford v. State
147 S.E.2d 52 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1966)
Williams v. State
111 Ga. App. 672 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Maddox v. State
108 S.E.2d 758 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1959)
Jones v. State
104 S.E.2d 530 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1958)
Fleming v. State
96 S.E.2d 554 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1957)
Goss v. State
61 S.E.2d 570 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1950)
Evans v. State
21 S.E.2d 920 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
Hall v. State
13 S.E.2d 868 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 S.E.2d 103, 63 Ga. App. 304, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chandler-v-state-gactapp-1940.