Hicks v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hicks v. State

133 S.E. 642, 35 Ga. App. 503, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 952

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 15, 1926

Docket17348

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 133 S.E. 642 (Hicks 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

Hicks v. State, 133 S.E. 642, 35 Ga. App. 503, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 952 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. The defendant was convicted of having intoxicating liquors-in his possession. The only two special grounds of the motion for a new trial allege that certain evidence was improperly admitted because obtained by illegal search and seizure, and because defendant’s home was searched while defendant was under illegal arrest. The case of Duren v. Thomasville, 125 Ga. 1 (53 S. E. 814), and that of Smith v. State, 17 Ga. App. 693 (88 S. E. 42), settle this question adversely to plaintiff in error. The ease last cited includes the answer of the Supreme Court to questions certified to it by this court on this subject, and contains a full discussion of the principle here involved and the leading eases thereon.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict; the record discloses no error of law in the trial of the cáse, and the court properly overruled the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

1. The defendant was convicted of having intoxicating liquors-in his possession. The only two special grounds of the motion for a new trial allege that certain evidence was improperly admitted because obtained by illegal search and seizure, and because defendant’s home was searched while defendant was under illegal arrest. The case of Duren v. Thomasville, 125 Ga. 1 (53 S. E. 814), and that of Smith v. State, 17 Ga. App. 693 (88 S. E. 42), settle this question adversely to plaintiff in error. The ease last cited includes the answer of the Supreme Court to questions certified to it by this court on this subject, and contains a full discussion of the principle here involved and the leading eases thereon.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict; the record discloses no error of law in the trial of the cáse, and the court properly overruled the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 S.E. 642, 35 Ga. App. 503, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hicks-v-state-gactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack