McCollum v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

McCollum v. State

29 S.E.2d 105, 70 Ga. App. 535, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 37

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 1, 1944

Docket30327.

StatusPublished

This text of 29 S.E.2d 105 (McCollum 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

McCollum v. State, 29 S.E.2d 105, 70 Ga. App. 535, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 37 (Ga. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Gardner, J.

The defendant was found guilty of a violation of • the State uniform drug act. She filed, a motion for a new trial containing the general and two special grounds. The court overruled the motion, and she excepted.

1. As to the general grounds the evidence overwhelmingly supported the verdict.

2. Special ground 1 complains because the court admitted, over objection, testimony of a witness that an officer had been to her home (where the defendant resided) on an occasion other than the one involving the transaction for which the defendant was tried. The witness testified that on the previous occasion the officers went there to investigate “paregoric.” It is contended that this testimony was highly prejudicial and harmful in such a degree as to demand a reversal. The record does not reveal that the officers were making the investigation with reference to the defendant. Then, too, counsel for the defendant had questioned the officers at length as to the number of visits they had made to her home, *536 their motive, etc. In view of the entire evidence, this assignment is without merit.

3. Special ground 2 assigns error because the court admitted, over objection of the defendant, a plea of guilty to an accusation charging the. defendant with public drunkenness. The record does not disclose what produced the intoxication of the defendant on that occasion, but under the evidence in the case, including the defendant's statement, this evidence was admissible, having been offered in rebuttal after the defendant had made her statement. This ground is without merit.

The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Gardner, J.

The defendant was found guilty of a violation of • the State uniform drug act. She filed, a motion for a new trial containing the general and two special grounds. The court overruled the motion, and she excepted.

1. As to the general grounds the evidence overwhelmingly supported the verdict.

2. Special ground 1 complains because the court admitted, over objection, testimony of a witness that an officer had been to her home (where the defendant resided) on an occasion other than the one involving the transaction for which the defendant was tried. The witness testified that on the previous occasion the officers went there to investigate “paregoric.” It is contended that this testimony was highly prejudicial and harmful in such a degree as to demand a reversal. The record does not reveal that the officers were making the investigation with reference to the defendant. Then, too, counsel for the defendant had questioned the officers at length as to the number of visits they had made to her home, *536 their motive, etc. In view of the entire evidence, this assignment is without merit.

3. Special ground 2 assigns error because the court admitted, over objection of the defendant, a plea of guilty to an accusation charging the. defendant with public drunkenness. The record does not disclose what produced the intoxication of the defendant on that occasion, but under the evidence in the case, including the defendant's statement, this evidence was admissible, having been offered in rebuttal after the defendant had made her statement. This ground is without merit.

The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 S.E.2d 105, 70 Ga. App. 535, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccollum-v-state-gactapp-1944.