Lampkin v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lampkin v. State

54 S.E.2d 448, 79 Ga. App. 645, 1949 Ga. App. LEXIS 713

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 14, 1949

Docket32574.

StatusPublished

This text of 54 S.E.2d 448 (Lampkin 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

Lampkin v. State, 54 S.E.2d 448, 79 Ga. App. 645, 1949 Ga. App. LEXIS 713 (Ga. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

MacIntyre, P. J.

Where there were two counts in the accusation, count 1 charging the offense of selling intoxicants, and count 2 charging the offense of possessing an excessive amount of tax-paid intoxicants, and where, “upon the call of the case, both the State and the defendant announced ready for trial, the defendant entered a plea of not guilty, a jury was chosen, sworn, and empaneled in the case, the State introduced evidence, and the defendant made a statement in the case, after which the Solicitor of the City Court of Eastman announced in open court that the State was abandoning count No. 2 of the accusation because there was only one pint of tax-paid bonded whisky involved,” and the jury returned a verdict of “guilty on count 1,” that verdict is not to be construed as a general verdict, impliedly finding the defendant not guilty on the second count, that count having been withdrawn. Hall v. State, 43 Ga. App. 224 (158 S. E. 357); Guthas v. State, 53 Ga. App. 362 (185 S. E. 837); Davis v. State, 47 Ga. App. 706 (171 S. E. 401). In these circumstances, it follows that no question of the verdict on count 1 being void for repugnancy is presented, and the court did not err in overruling the motion in arrest of judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner and Townsend, JJ., concur. .

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

MacIntyre, P. J.

Where there were two counts in the accusation, count 1 charging the offense of selling intoxicants, and count 2 charging the offense of possessing an excessive amount of tax-paid intoxicants, and where, “upon the call of the case, both the State and the defendant announced ready for trial, the defendant entered a plea of not guilty, a jury was chosen, sworn, and empaneled in the case, the State introduced evidence, and the defendant made a statement in the case, after which the Solicitor of the City Court of Eastman announced in open court that the State was abandoning count No. 2 of the accusation because there was only one pint of tax-paid bonded whisky involved,” and the jury returned a verdict of “guilty on count 1,” that verdict is not to be construed as a general verdict, impliedly finding the defendant not guilty on the second count, that count having been withdrawn. Hall v. State, 43 Ga. App. 224 (158 S. E. 357); Guthas v. State, 53 Ga. App. 362 (185 S. E. 837); Davis v. State, 47 Ga. App. 706 (171 S. E. 401). In these circumstances, it follows that no question of the verdict on count 1 being void for repugnancy is presented, and the court did not err in overruling the motion in arrest of judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner and Townsend, JJ., concur. .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 S.E.2d 448, 79 Ga. App. 645, 1949 Ga. App. LEXIS 713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lampkin-v-state-gactapp-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack