Harbin v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Harbin v. State

168 S.E. 922, 46 Ga. App. 692, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 197

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 5, 1933

Docket23003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 168 S.E. 922 (Harbin 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

Harbin v. State, 168 S.E. 922, 46 Ga. App. 692, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 197 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Guerry, J.

The motion for a new trial contains no special ground. The defendant was convicted under the act of 1917 (Act Ex. Sess. 1917, p. 18). The evidence of the defendant’s own witness shows that the still was on the premises rented by him and the defendant jointly. There was also other evidence connecting the defendant with the still. This makes a prima facie case for [693]*693the State, and the question of whether or not the defendant knew of the still was one for the jury, which was resolved against him, and this court can not say that they erred in so finding. Bacon v. State, 44 Ga. App. 572 (162 S. E. 163); Neville v. State, 29 Ga. App. 232 (114 S. E. 720); Johnson v. State, 38 Ga. App. 369; Carter v. State, 21 Ga. App. 493 (94 S. E. 630); Malcom v. State, 28 Ga. App. 627 (112 S. E. 651). The court therefore did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Guerry, J.

The motion for a new trial contains no special ground. The defendant was convicted under the act of 1917 (Act Ex. Sess. 1917, p. 18). The evidence of the defendant’s own witness shows that the still was on the premises rented by him and the defendant jointly. There was also other evidence connecting the defendant with the still. This makes a prima facie case for [693]*693the State, and the question of whether or not the defendant knew of the still was one for the jury, which was resolved against him, and this court can not say that they erred in so finding. Bacon v. State, 44 Ga. App. 572 (162 S. E. 163); Neville v. State, 29 Ga. App. 232 (114 S. E. 720); Johnson v. State, 38 Ga. App. 369; Carter v. State, 21 Ga. App. 493 (94 S. E. 630); Malcom v. State, 28 Ga. App. 627 (112 S. E. 651). The court therefore did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 S.E. 922, 46 Ga. App. 692, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harbin-v-state-gactapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack