Lanier v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lanier v. State

183 S.E. 658, 52 Ga. App. 459, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 2

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 20, 1935

Docket25377

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 183 S.E. 658 (Lanier 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

Lanier v. State, 183 S.E. 658, 52 Ga. App. 459, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 2 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The accused was convicted, in the criminal court of Atlanta, of operating an automobile on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor; and his certiorari was overruled. In such a case “it is not necessary for the State to show that the accused was drunk, but it is sufficient if the State [460]*460shows, beyond a reasonable donbt, that the accused was under the influence of some intoxicant as charged, to any extent whatsoever, whether drunk or not.” Austin v. State, 47 Ga. App. 191 (170 S. E. 86). While the evidence in the instant case was weak and largely circumstantial and would have authorized the defendant’s acquittal, it also supported the verdict; and not being wholly circumstantial, and the finding of the jury having been approved by the superior court, this court is without authority to interfere. There is no merit in the single special assignment of error based on the -refusal of the judge to direct a verdict for the accused. Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, a refusal to direct a verdict is never error. The judge did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The accused was convicted, in the criminal court of Atlanta, of operating an automobile on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor; and his certiorari was overruled. In such a case “it is not necessary for the State to show that the accused was drunk, but it is sufficient if the State [460]*460shows, beyond a reasonable donbt, that the accused was under the influence of some intoxicant as charged, to any extent whatsoever, whether drunk or not.” Austin v. State, 47 Ga. App. 191 (170 S. E. 86). While the evidence in the instant case was weak and largely circumstantial and would have authorized the defendant’s acquittal, it also supported the verdict; and not being wholly circumstantial, and the finding of the jury having been approved by the superior court, this court is without authority to interfere. There is no merit in the single special assignment of error based on the -refusal of the judge to direct a verdict for the accused. Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, a refusal to direct a verdict is never error. The judge did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 S.E. 658, 52 Ga. App. 459, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lanier-v-state-gactapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack