Guthas v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Guthas v. State

185 S.E. 837, 53 Ga. App. 362, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 117

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 8, 1936

Docket25357

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 185 S.E. 837 (Guthas 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

Guthas v. State, 185 S.E. 837, 53 Ga. App. 362, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 117 (Ga. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

MacIntyre, J.

1. Wliere there were two counts in the indictment, and “during the trial of the said ease the State, through statement of its counsel made in open court, withdrew the second count of said indictment,” and a verdict was rendered by the judge, without the intervention of a jury, as follows: “I find the defendant, guilty, this June 27th, 1935,” this general verdict will be construed as meaning guilty [363]*363on the first count only, the second count having been withdrawn. Hence, it is immaterial whether or not the evidence authorized a verdict on the second count. There is no merit in the special ground of the motion for a new trial. Hall v. State, 43 Ga. App. 224 (158 S. E. 357) ; Vinson v. State, 45 Ga. App. 220 (3) (164 S. E. 209) ; Davis v. State, 47 Ga. App. 706 (171 S. E. 401).

Decided April 8, 1936. Rehearing denied May 26, 1936. J. O. Ewing, Durwood T. Pye, for plaintiff in error. John S. McClelland, solicitor, John A. Boykin, solicitor-general, J. W. LeCraw, contra.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and for no reason assigned should the judgment be reversed.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Guerry, J., concur.

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

MacIntyre, J.

1. Wliere there were two counts in the indictment, and “during the trial of the said ease the State, through statement of its counsel made in open court, withdrew the second count of said indictment,” and a verdict was rendered by the judge, without the intervention of a jury, as follows: “I find the defendant, guilty, this June 27th, 1935,” this general verdict will be construed as meaning guilty [363]*363on the first count only, the second count having been withdrawn. Hence, it is immaterial whether or not the evidence authorized a verdict on the second count. There is no merit in the special ground of the motion for a new trial. Hall v. State, 43 Ga. App. 224 (158 S. E. 357) ; Vinson v. State, 45 Ga. App. 220 (3) (164 S. E. 209) ; Davis v. State, 47 Ga. App. 706 (171 S. E. 401).

Decided April 8, 1936. Rehearing denied May 26, 1936. J. O. Ewing, Durwood T. Pye, for plaintiff in error. John S. McClelland, solicitor, John A. Boykin, solicitor-general, J. W. LeCraw, contra.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and for no reason assigned should the judgment be reversed.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Guerry, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 S.E. 837, 53 Ga. App. 362, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guthas-v-state-gactapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack