Martin v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Martin v. State

244 S.E.2d 91, 145 Ga. App. 564, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2038

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 4, 1978

Docket55252

StatusPublished

This text of 244 S.E.2d 91 (Martin 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

Martin v. State, 244 S.E.2d 91, 145 Ga. App. 564, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2038 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Birdsong, Judge.

Martin was convicted of a misdemeanor pursuant to Code Ann. § 56-9915.2. The state alleged that he knowingly authorized another to operate a motor vehicle in violation of the Georgia Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act (Code Ann. Ch. 56-34B). Martin appeals, enumerating several errors as well as the general grounds. Held:

1. We are mindful of the directive that "[o]n appeal, this court is bound to construe the evidence with every inference and presumption being in favor of upholding the jury’s verdict.” Mills v. State, 137 Ga. App. 305, 306 (223 SE2d 498). Nevertheless, the evidence totally fails to show that Martin knowingly authorized another to operate his vehicle. Both Martin and the individual who, in fact, drove Martin’s vehicle testified that Martin never authorized its use; the state presented no contradictory evidence.

2. In view of our holding in Division 1, we need not consider appellant’s remaining enumerations of error. Harris v. State, 188 Ga. 745 (4) (4 SE2d 651).

Judgment reversed.

Bell, C. J., and Shulmán, J., concur.

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

Birdsong, Judge.

Martin was convicted of a misdemeanor pursuant to Code Ann. § 56-9915.2. The state alleged that he knowingly authorized another to operate a motor vehicle in violation of the Georgia Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act (Code Ann. Ch. 56-34B). Martin appeals, enumerating several errors as well as the general grounds. Held:

1. We are mindful of the directive that "[o]n appeal, this court is bound to construe the evidence with every inference and presumption being in favor of upholding the jury’s verdict.” Mills v. State, 137 Ga. App. 305, 306 (223 SE2d 498). Nevertheless, the evidence totally fails to show that Martin knowingly authorized another to operate his vehicle. Both Martin and the individual who, in fact, drove Martin’s vehicle testified that Martin never authorized its use; the state presented no contradictory evidence.

2. In view of our holding in Division 1, we need not consider appellant’s remaining enumerations of error. Harris v. State, 188 Ga. 745 (4) (4 SE2d 651).

Judgment reversed.

Bell, C. J., and Shulmán, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 S.E.2d 91, 145 Ga. App. 564, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2038, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-state-gactapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack