Ingram v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ingram v. State

102 S.E. 452, 25 Ga. App. 7, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 545

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 2, 1920

Docket11158

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 102 S.E. 452 (Ingram 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

Ingram v. State, 102 S.E. 452, 25 Ga. App. 7, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 545 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The jury were authorized to convict the defendant of carrying a pistol concealed. The witness for the State testified that the defendant pulled a pistol from his hip-pocket, and that the pistol was concealed. We do not agree with the contention that the evidence amounts to no more than a conclusion drawn by the witness that the pistol was concealed, and that the conclusion was unauthorized. Under the evidence and the statement of the defendant, there is but one verdict that the jury could reach, and that is a verdict of guilty. This case is clearly distinguishable from Stripling v. State, 114 Ga. 538 (40 S. E. 733). In view of the note of the trial judge and a reading of the charge as a whole, there is no- merit in the exception to the charge of the court. ,

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

The jury were authorized to convict the defendant of carrying a pistol concealed. The witness for the State testified that the defendant pulled a pistol from his hip-pocket, and that the pistol was concealed. We do not agree with the contention that the evidence amounts to no more than a conclusion drawn by the witness that the pistol was concealed, and that the conclusion was unauthorized. Under the evidence and the statement of the defendant, there is but one verdict that the jury could reach, and that is a verdict of guilty. This case is clearly distinguishable from Stripling v. State, 114 Ga. 538 (40 S. E. 733). In view of the note of the trial judge and a reading of the charge as a whole, there is no- merit in the exception to the charge of the court. ,

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 S.E. 452, 25 Ga. App. 7, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ingram-v-state-gactapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack