Gatlin v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Gatlin v. State

109 S.E. 522, 27 Ga. App. 627, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 318

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 17, 1921

Docket12733

StatusPublished

This text of 109 S.E. 522 (Gatlin 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

Gatlin v. State, 109 S.E. 522, 27 Ga. App. 627, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 318 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. On the trial of one charged with having intoxicating liquor in his possession, where the evidence showed that two policemen arrested him in the city of Thomasville and took some whisky from his person, it was not error to allow the arresting officers to testify that the defendant was drunk when they took the whisky from him, they testifying that “ the defendant was drunk and disorderly in our presence and violating a city ordinance, and we arrested him for violation of city ordinance.” The evidence that he was drunk was relevant for the purpose of showing that his arrest was legal, and therefore that the evidence as to the finding of whisky on his person was legal and admissible against him.

2. -The evidence demanded the verdict, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. On the trial of one charged with having intoxicating liquor in his possession, where the evidence showed that two policemen arrested him in the city of Thomasville and took some whisky from his person, it was not error to allow the arresting officers to testify that the defendant was drunk when they took the whisky from him, they testifying that “ the defendant was drunk and disorderly in our presence and violating a city ordinance, and we arrested him for violation of city ordinance.” The evidence that he was drunk was relevant for the purpose of showing that his arrest was legal, and therefore that the evidence as to the finding of whisky on his person was legal and admissible against him.

2. -The evidence demanded the verdict, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 S.E. 522, 27 Ga. App. 627, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gatlin-v-state-gactapp-1921.