Jackson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Jackson v. State

183 S.E. 104, 52 Ga. App. 304, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 146

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 20, 1935

Docket25274

StatusPublished

This text of 183 S.E. 104 (Jackson 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

Jackson v. State, 183 S.E. 104, 52 Ga. App. 304, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 146 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Guerry, J.

The defendant was found guilty of the illegal possession of whisky. The arresting officer testified: “he had a half-gallon of liquor in a sack. I took him and the half-gallon jar and brought them over to the office. I labeled the liquor and put it in the office, and told him to come back and give bond.” On cross-examination he testified: “I supposed the stuff to be whisky in the fruit jar. I never smelled it or tasted it. All [305]*305he told me about it was that he had a package. . . I never did open it or taste of it. I told him I was arresting him for having whisky and he never did deny it.” The facts developed on cross-examination show that the evidence of the witness that the defendant “had a half-gallon of liquor” was a conclusion which was not warranted from the facts stated by him. The jar and its contents not being introduced, and the evidence showing affirmatively that the arresting officer did not examine the contents of the jar, the’ evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. Elrod v. State, 39 Ga. App. 482 (147 S. E. 594); Thomas v. State, 143 Ga. 268, 270 (84 S. E. 587).

Judgment reversed.

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 defendant was found guilty of the illegal possession of whisky. The arresting officer testified: “he had a half-gallon of liquor in a sack. I took him and the half-gallon jar and brought them over to the office. I labeled the liquor and put it in the office, and told him to come back and give bond.” On cross-examination he testified: “I supposed the stuff to be whisky in the fruit jar. I never smelled it or tasted it. All [305]*305he told me about it was that he had a package. . . I never did open it or taste of it. I told him I was arresting him for having whisky and he never did deny it.” The facts developed on cross-examination show that the evidence of the witness that the defendant “had a half-gallon of liquor” was a conclusion which was not warranted from the facts stated by him. The jar and its contents not being introduced, and the evidence showing affirmatively that the arresting officer did not examine the contents of the jar, the’ evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. Elrod v. State, 39 Ga. App. 482 (147 S. E. 594); Thomas v. State, 143 Ga. 268, 270 (84 S. E. 587).

Judgment reversed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 S.E. 104, 52 Ga. App. 304, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-state-gactapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack