Lane v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lane v. State

166 S.E. 453, 46 Ga. App. 58, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 45

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 17, 1932

Docket22682

StatusPublished

This text of 166 S.E. 453 (Lane 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

Lane v. State, 166 S.E. 453, 46 Ga. App. 58, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 45 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The alleged newly discovered evidence as presented by the plaintiff in error' was met with a counter-showing by the State, and this court can not hold that the judge abused his discretion in overruling the grounds of the motion for a new trial based upon such evidence.

2. The defendant was convicted of a misdemeanor (possessing whisky), and in all misdemeanors any one who is present at the scene of the crime, aiding and abetting another in the commission thereof, is as guilty as the actual perpetrator of the offense. Keeping in view this principle of law, the evidence connecting the defendant with the offense charged, while wholly circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of his guilt. The refusal to grant a new trial was not error for any reason assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

Hooper, J., concurs. MacIntyre, J., not presiding.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The alleged newly discovered evidence as presented by the plaintiff in error' was met with a counter-showing by the State, and this court can not hold that the judge abused his discretion in overruling the grounds of the motion for a new trial based upon such evidence.

2. The defendant was convicted of a misdemeanor (possessing whisky), and in all misdemeanors any one who is present at the scene of the crime, aiding and abetting another in the commission thereof, is as guilty as the actual perpetrator of the offense. Keeping in view this principle of law, the evidence connecting the defendant with the offense charged, while wholly circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of his guilt. The refusal to grant a new trial was not error for any reason assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

Hooper, J., concurs. MacIntyre, J., not presiding.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 S.E. 453, 46 Ga. App. 58, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lane-v-state-gactapp-1932.