Hamilton v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hamilton v. State

78 S.E.2d 875, 89 Ga. App. 159, 1953 Ga. App. LEXIS 926

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 13, 1953

Docket34905

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 78 S.E.2d 875 (Hamilton 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

Hamilton v. State, 78 S.E.2d 875, 89 Ga. App. 159, 1953 Ga. App. LEXIS 926 (Ga. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Townsend, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment denying a motion for new trial on the general grounds only. The evidence, while in conflict, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that the defendant was operating an automobile while under the influence of an intoxicant, and that this influence was of such degree that he was so affected by intoxicating liquor as to make it less safe for him to operate such motor vehicle than it would be if he were not affected by the intoxicant. James v. State, 45 Ga. App. 228 (1) (164 S. E. 104); Hinson v. State, 88 Ga. App. 318 (1) (77 S. E. 2d 63). The verdict, being supported by the evidence and having the approval of the trial court, will not be disturbed by this court. Code § 70-202 and cases cited thereunder. The trial court did not err in denying the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P. J., and Carlisle, J., concur.

[160]*160This testimony was contradicted by the statement of the defendant, in substance that his unsteadiness was due to an arthritic condition rather than to intoxicants, and that he was not under the influence of liquor to any extent whatever. The defendant’s contentions were corroborated by several witnesses who testified in his behalf.

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

Townsend, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment denying a motion for new trial on the general grounds only. The evidence, while in conflict, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that the defendant was operating an automobile while under the influence of an intoxicant, and that this influence was of such degree that he was so affected by intoxicating liquor as to make it less safe for him to operate such motor vehicle than it would be if he were not affected by the intoxicant. James v. State, 45 Ga. App. 228 (1) (164 S. E. 104); Hinson v. State, 88 Ga. App. 318 (1) (77 S. E. 2d 63). The verdict, being supported by the evidence and having the approval of the trial court, will not be disturbed by this court. Code § 70-202 and cases cited thereunder. The trial court did not err in denying the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P. J., and Carlisle, J., concur.

[160]*160This testimony was contradicted by the statement of the defendant, in substance that his unsteadiness was due to an arthritic condition rather than to intoxicants, and that he was not under the influence of liquor to any extent whatever. The defendant’s contentions were corroborated by several witnesses who testified in his behalf.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 S.E.2d 875, 89 Ga. App. 159, 1953 Ga. App. LEXIS 926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-state-gactapp-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack