Clark v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Clark v. State

132 S.E. 650, 35 Ga. App. 241, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 657

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 14, 1926

Docket17073

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 132 S.E. 650 (Clark 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

Clark v. State, 132 S.E. 650, 35 Ga. App. 241, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 657 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Lube, J.

1. The jury were, upon conflicting evidence, authorized to convict the defendant upon the second count, which charged him with involuntary manslaughter, for that he killed one Nora Nesmith without any intention to do so, but in the commission of an unlawful act, to wit, the driving of a motor-vehicle on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. There was ample evidence that the killing was the result of his driving a truck on the public highway while intoxicated.

2. When the charge of the court is considered in its entirety, no reversible error appears therein.

3. The court did not err in permitting a witness to testify that a certain road was a “public highway.” See Long v. State, 32 Ga. App. 451 (2), 452 (124 S. E. 110).

4. The court properly overruled the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyl.es, O. J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., not participating, on account of illness.

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

Lube, J.

1. The jury were, upon conflicting evidence, authorized to convict the defendant upon the second count, which charged him with involuntary manslaughter, for that he killed one Nora Nesmith without any intention to do so, but in the commission of an unlawful act, to wit, the driving of a motor-vehicle on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. There was ample evidence that the killing was the result of his driving a truck on the public highway while intoxicated.

2. When the charge of the court is considered in its entirety, no reversible error appears therein.

3. The court did not err in permitting a witness to testify that a certain road was a “public highway.” See Long v. State, 32 Ga. App. 451 (2), 452 (124 S. E. 110).

4. The court properly overruled the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyl.es, O. J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., not participating, on account of illness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 S.E. 650, 35 Ga. App. 241, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 657, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-state-gactapp-1926.

Opinion

4. The court properly overruled the motion for a new trial.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack