Gordon v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Gordon v. State

193 S.E.2d 255, 127 Ga. App. 308, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 866

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 13, 1972

Docket47536

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 193 S.E.2d 255 (Gordon 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

Gordon v. State, 193 S.E.2d 255, 127 Ga. App. 308, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 866 (Ga. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Eberhardt, Presiding Judge.

Grady Gordon was indicted, convicted and sentenced for possession of heroin. At the trial he made an unsworn statement, claiming that the arresting detectives put the heroin in his pocket and were framing him. On this appeal defendant’s only contention is that the court erred in failing to charge the jury with respect to the exceptions contained in the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act and in charging the jury that it was not necessary for the State to negate any exception, proviso or exemption of the Act. Held:

At the trial there was no issue raised and no evidence in *309 troduced as to defendant qualifying under any of the exceptions to the Act, the only defense being that he was "framed,” and there was no error in failing to charge the exceptions. Vaughn v. State, 126 Ga. App. 252 (13) (190 SE2d 609); Kitchens v. State, 228 Ga. 624 (2) (187 SE2d 268). Nor was it error for the trial court to charge that it was not necessary for the State to negate exceptions to the Act. Code Ann. §§ 79A-1105, 26-401 (a); Robertson v. State, 127 Ga. App. 6. Moreover, defendant made no request to charge as to the exceptions. Stevens v. State, 228 Ga. 621 (3) (187 SE2d 281). Even if he had done so, it does not appear that a refusal of the request would have been error.

Submitted October 5, 1972 Decided October 13, 1972. Glenn Zell, for appellant. Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Joel M. Feldman, Ross C. Hawkins, for appellee.

Judgment ajfirmed.

Deen and Clark, JJ., concur.

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

Eberhardt, Presiding Judge.

Grady Gordon was indicted, convicted and sentenced for possession of heroin. At the trial he made an unsworn statement, claiming that the arresting detectives put the heroin in his pocket and were framing him. On this appeal defendant’s only contention is that the court erred in failing to charge the jury with respect to the exceptions contained in the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act and in charging the jury that it was not necessary for the State to negate any exception, proviso or exemption of the Act. Held:

At the trial there was no issue raised and no evidence in *309 troduced as to defendant qualifying under any of the exceptions to the Act, the only defense being that he was "framed,” and there was no error in failing to charge the exceptions. Vaughn v. State, 126 Ga. App. 252 (13) (190 SE2d 609); Kitchens v. State, 228 Ga. 624 (2) (187 SE2d 268). Nor was it error for the trial court to charge that it was not necessary for the State to negate exceptions to the Act. Code Ann. §§ 79A-1105, 26-401 (a); Robertson v. State, 127 Ga. App. 6. Moreover, defendant made no request to charge as to the exceptions. Stevens v. State, 228 Ga. 621 (3) (187 SE2d 281). Even if he had done so, it does not appear that a refusal of the request would have been error.

Submitted October 5, 1972 Decided October 13, 1972. Glenn Zell, for appellant. Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Joel M. Feldman, Ross C. Hawkins, for appellee.

Judgment ajfirmed.

Deen and Clark, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 S.E.2d 255, 127 Ga. App. 308, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordon-v-state-gactapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack