Hutchinson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hutchinson v. State

167 S.E. 205, 46 Ga. App. 219, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 117

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 24, 1932

Docket22780

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 167 S.E. 205 (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, 167 S.E. 205, 46 Ga. App. 219, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 117 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

MacIntyre, J.

The indictment in this case, drawn under section 442 of the Penal Code (1910), charges that Prank Hutchinson “did appear in an intoxicated condition on a public street of Gainesville, Ga.,” and that said “drunkenness and intoxication was caused by the use of intoxicating wines, beers, liquors, and opiates.” The defendant was convicted, and his motion for a new trial contains only the usual general grounds. There was testimony from which the jury might have concluded that the defendant was drunk, but there was no evidence to show that his alleged intoxication was produced by wines, beers, liquors, or opiates, or by any one of them. Held: The failure to prove the cause of the defendant’s intoxication was fatal to the State’s case, and the trial judge erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. Brand v. State, 153 Ga. 639 (112 S. E. 829), s. c. 28 Ga. App. 719 (113 S. E. 57).

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G..J., and Hooper, J., concur. Hubert B. Edmondson, for plaintiff in error. G. Fred Kelley, solicitor, contra.

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

MacIntyre, J.

The indictment in this case, drawn under section 442 of the Penal Code (1910), charges that Prank Hutchinson “did appear in an intoxicated condition on a public street of Gainesville, Ga.,” and that said “drunkenness and intoxication was caused by the use of intoxicating wines, beers, liquors, and opiates.” The defendant was convicted, and his motion for a new trial contains only the usual general grounds. There was testimony from which the jury might have concluded that the defendant was drunk, but there was no evidence to show that his alleged intoxication was produced by wines, beers, liquors, or opiates, or by any one of them. Held: The failure to prove the cause of the defendant’s intoxication was fatal to the State’s case, and the trial judge erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. Brand v. State, 153 Ga. 639 (112 S. E. 829), s. c. 28 Ga. App. 719 (113 S. E. 57).

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G..J., and Hooper, J., concur. Hubert B. Edmondson, for plaintiff in error. G. Fred Kelley, solicitor, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 S.E. 205, 46 Ga. App. 219, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutchinson-v-state-gactapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack