Hutchinson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hutchinson v. State

63 S.E. 597, 5 Ga. App. 598, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 73

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 9, 1909

Docket1535

StatusPublished

This text of 63 S.E. 597 (Hutchinson 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

Hutchinson v. State, 63 S.E. 597, 5 Ga. App. 598, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 73 (Ga. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. An admission by the defendant that he had sold intoxicating liquors, without identifying the time and place of the sale, can only be considered as an inculpatory admission, and, as such, does not require a charge to the jury on the law of confessions as laid down in the Penal Code, §§1005, 1006. Ransom v. State, 2 Ga. App. 826 (59 S. E. 101).

2. The admission of irrelevant or hearsay testimony which does not relate to the defendant and can not harm him is ordinarily not ground for reversal.

"3. The evidence in support of the verdict is very weak and barely discernible to judicial scrutiny. But there is some evidence, and the jury and the trial judge thought it sufficient. This court has no discretion in the matter. Judgment affirmed.

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

Hill, C. J.

1. An admission by the defendant that he had sold intoxicating liquors, without identifying the time and place of the sale, can only be considered as an inculpatory admission, and, as such, does not require a charge to the jury on the law of confessions as laid down in the Penal Code, §§1005, 1006. Ransom v. State, 2 Ga. App. 826 (59 S. E. 101).

2. The admission of irrelevant or hearsay testimony which does not relate to the defendant and can not harm him is ordinarily not ground for reversal.

"3. The evidence in support of the verdict is very weak and barely discernible to judicial scrutiny. But there is some evidence, and the jury and the trial judge thought it sufficient. This court has no discretion in the matter. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 S.E. 597, 5 Ga. App. 598, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutchinson-v-state-gactapp-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack