Dumas v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Dumas v. State

147 S.E. 404, 39 Ga. App. 411, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 346

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 5, 1929

Docket19396

StatusPublished

This text of 147 S.E. 404 (Dumas 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

Dumas v. State, 147 S.E. 404, 39 Ga. App. 411, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 346 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

The accusation in this case contained two counts, the first charging that the accused did “unlawfully sell, offer for sale, keep for sale, and barter alcoholic and spirituous liquors,” and the second alleging that she “did then and there unlawfully have and control intoxicating liquors.” There was a general verdict of guilty. This means guilty on both counts. While there is some evidence to support a verdict on the second count, there is none to support a verdict on the first. In Simmons [412]*412v. State, 162 Ga. 316 (134 S. E. 54), 35 Ga. App. 652 (134 S. E. 202), it was held: “it is error to refuse a new trial where an accusation contains two counts, the first charging a sale of whisky, and the second charging possession of whisky, both charges growing out of the same transaction, where upon the trial the evidence authorizes a conviction upon the second count only and the verdict is a general verdict of guilty.” See Jones v. State, 27 Ga. App. 600 (110 S. E. 37).

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

The accusation in this case contained two counts, the first charging that the accused did “unlawfully sell, offer for sale, keep for sale, and barter alcoholic and spirituous liquors,” and the second alleging that she “did then and there unlawfully have and control intoxicating liquors.” There was a general verdict of guilty. This means guilty on both counts. While there is some evidence to support a verdict on the second count, there is none to support a verdict on the first. In Simmons [412]*412v. State, 162 Ga. 316 (134 S. E. 54), 35 Ga. App. 652 (134 S. E. 202), it was held: “it is error to refuse a new trial where an accusation contains two counts, the first charging a sale of whisky, and the second charging possession of whisky, both charges growing out of the same transaction, where upon the trial the evidence authorizes a conviction upon the second count only and the verdict is a general verdict of guilty.” See Jones v. State, 27 Ga. App. 600 (110 S. E. 37).

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 S.E. 404, 39 Ga. App. 411, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dumas-v-state-gactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack