Cosby v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cosby v. State

64 S.E.2d 595, 83 Ga. App. 682, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 935

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 3, 1951

Docket33390

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 64 S.E.2d 595 (Cosby 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

Cosby v. State, 64 S.E.2d 595, 83 Ga. App. 682, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 935 (Ga. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

MacIntyre, P.J.

“On a prosecution under Code § 13-9933, for passing-

worthless checks, the intent to defraud cannot be presumed until it is shown by the evidence that the defendant did not have sufficient funds in or credit with the bank upon which the check was drawn to pay it at the time it was presented for payment” (Crain v. State, 78 Ga. App. 806, 52 S. E. 2d, 577); and, where, in such a prosecution, there is no evidence that the check, which was alleged to have been drawn with the intent to defraud, was ever presented to the bank upon which drawn; and there is "not other evidence from which an intent to defraud could be inferred, a verdict of guilty under such Code section is contrary to the evidence and the law (McCard v. State, 54 Ga. App. 339, 187 S. E. 850; Meena v. State, 66 Ga. App. 99, 17 S. E. 2d, 86), and a new trial must be granted.

The court erred in overruling 'the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Gardner and Townsend, JJ., concur.

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

MacIntyre, P.J.

“On a prosecution under Code § 13-9933, for passing-

worthless checks, the intent to defraud cannot be presumed until it is shown by the evidence that the defendant did not have sufficient funds in or credit with the bank upon which the check was drawn to pay it at the time it was presented for payment” (Crain v. State, 78 Ga. App. 806, 52 S. E. 2d, 577); and, where, in such a prosecution, there is no evidence that the check, which was alleged to have been drawn with the intent to defraud, was ever presented to the bank upon which drawn; and there is "not other evidence from which an intent to defraud could be inferred, a verdict of guilty under such Code section is contrary to the evidence and the law (McCard v. State, 54 Ga. App. 339, 187 S. E. 850; Meena v. State, 66 Ga. App. 99, 17 S. E. 2d, 86), and a new trial must be granted.

The court erred in overruling 'the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Gardner and Townsend, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 S.E.2d 595, 83 Ga. App. 682, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cosby-v-state-gactapp-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack