Chapman v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Chapman v. State

143 S.E. 923, 38 Ga. App. 345, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 213

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 10, 1928

Docket18961

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 143 S.E. 923 (Chapman 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

Chapman v. State, 143 S.E. 923, 38 Ga. App. 345, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 213 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The defendant was convicted of manufacturing whisky. The undisputed evidence showed that he and another man were at a distillery which was in operation and running out whisky, and that both fled and escaped from the raiding officers. The defendant lived about a mile and a half away. No other persons were at the distillery. In his statement to the jury the defendant attempted to explain his presence at the distillery. Whether that explanation “was reasonable and satisfactory was a question for the jury; and the jury having rejected it as unsatisfactory to them, and their finding having been approved by the trial judge, this court has no authority to interfere.” See Flint v. State, 29 Ga. App. 222 (114 S. E. 585); Yonce v. State, 29 Ga. App. 173 (114 S. E. 584).

2. None of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial show cause for a reversal of the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodxoorth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The defendant was convicted of manufacturing whisky. The undisputed evidence showed that he and another man were at a distillery which was in operation and running out whisky, and that both fled and escaped from the raiding officers. The defendant lived about a mile and a half away. No other persons were at the distillery. In his statement to the jury the defendant attempted to explain his presence at the distillery. Whether that explanation “was reasonable and satisfactory was a question for the jury; and the jury having rejected it as unsatisfactory to them, and their finding having been approved by the trial judge, this court has no authority to interfere.” See Flint v. State, 29 Ga. App. 222 (114 S. E. 585); Yonce v. State, 29 Ga. App. 173 (114 S. E. 584).

2. None of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial show cause for a reversal of the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodxoorth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 S.E. 923, 38 Ga. App. 345, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapman-v-state-gactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack