Crews v. State
This text of 213 S.E.2d 34 (Crews 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.
Opinion
1. A police officer who, after receiving information from an informer that the defendant is illegally selling amphetamines, arranges with such third person to meet the defendant, and thereafter offers to and does purchase the drug from him for the purpose of obtaining evidence, is not an accomplice. Marshall v. State, 98 Ga. App. 429 (105 SE2d 748); Yeomans v. State, 229 Ga. 488 (192 SE2d 362).
2. The crime of illegally selling drugs is not one of those listed in Code § 38-121, which would require the testimony of a second witness to support a conviction.
3. The denial by the defendant, by his plea of not guilty and by his testimony, that the sale took place as testified to by the police officer, created an issue for jury decision. Where the testimony of the state and the defendant are in conflict, the jury is the final arbiter. *765 Harrell v. State, 69 Ga. App. 482 (1) (26 SE2d 151). "It is the province of the jury, and theirs alone, when considering conflicting evidence and statements of defendants, to decide what evidence to believe or disbelieve.” Locey v. State, 74 Ga. App. 447, 448 (39 SE2d 763). The evidence is not insufficient merely because neither side has a numerical superiority of witnesses.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
213 S.E.2d 34, 133 Ga. App. 764, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 2274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crews-v-state-gactapp-1975.