Hall v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hall v. State

198 S.E. 713, 58 Ga. App. 398, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 279

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 20, 1938

Docket26986

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 198 S.E. 713 (Hall 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

Hall v. State, 198 S.E. 713, 58 Ga. App. 398, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 279 (Ga. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. '“On the trial of one charged with operating an automobile on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, it is not necessary for the State, in order to secure a conviction, to show that the accused was drunk, but it is sufficient if the State shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused (while driving the car) was under the influence of some intoxicant as charged, to any extent whatsoever, whether drunk or not.” Moye v. State, 46 Ga. App. 727 (169 S. E. 59), and cit. In view of the foregoing ruling, the excerpt from the charge of the court (complained of in the sole special ground of the motion for new trial), was not error for any reason assigned.

2. The evidence, while in sharp conflict, authorized the verdict; and the court did not err in denying a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre amd Guerry, 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 operating an automobile on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, it is not necessary for the State, in order to secure a conviction, to show that the accused was drunk, but it is sufficient if the State shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused (while driving the car) was under the influence of some intoxicant as charged, to any extent whatsoever, whether drunk or not.” Moye v. State, 46 Ga. App. 727 (169 S. E. 59), and cit. In view of the foregoing ruling, the excerpt from the charge of the court (complained of in the sole special ground of the motion for new trial), was not error for any reason assigned.

2. The evidence, while in sharp conflict, authorized the verdict; and the court did not err in denying a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre amd Guerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 S.E. 713, 58 Ga. App. 398, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-state-gactapp-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack