Danforth v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Danforth v. State

143 S.E. 437, 38 Ga. App. 210, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 140

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 17, 1928

Docket18765

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 143 S.E. 437 (Danforth 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

Danforth v. State, 143 S.E. 437, 38 Ga. App. 210, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 140 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam:.

The accused was convicted of illegally possessing [211]*211intoxicating liquor. The undisputed evidence for the State was that she admitted to the arresting officers that the room in which the whisky was found and the house were hers: It is true that in her statement to the jury she denied this, but the jury evidently disbelieved her, and it was not error for the judge, in the absence of a written request, to fail to charge upon the defendant’s contentions as set up solely by her statement. Likewise there was no evidence as to any joint occupancy of the room where the whisky was found, that contention also being raised solely by the defendant’s statement; and accordingly the failure to charge the law relating to joint occupancy was not error. The charge was without material error, and the finding of the jury was authorized.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur, Luke, J., dissents.

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

Per Curiam:.

The accused was convicted of illegally possessing [211]*211intoxicating liquor. The undisputed evidence for the State was that she admitted to the arresting officers that the room in which the whisky was found and the house were hers: It is true that in her statement to the jury she denied this, but the jury evidently disbelieved her, and it was not error for the judge, in the absence of a written request, to fail to charge upon the defendant’s contentions as set up solely by her statement. Likewise there was no evidence as to any joint occupancy of the room where the whisky was found, that contention also being raised solely by the defendant’s statement; and accordingly the failure to charge the law relating to joint occupancy was not error. The charge was without material error, and the finding of the jury was authorized.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur, Luke, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 S.E. 437, 38 Ga. App. 210, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/danforth-v-state-gactapp-1928.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack