Parham v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Parham v. State

161 S.E. 270, 44 Ga. App. 294, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 682

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 11, 1931

Docket21762

StatusPublished

This text of 161 S.E. 270 (Parham 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

Parham v. State, 161 S.E. 270, 44 Ga. App. 294, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 682 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, O. J.

The evidence was in acute conflict as to whether the accused was in an intoxicated condition on a public highway, and as to whether his condition was caused by the excessive use of intoxicating [295]*295wines, beers, or liquors, and as to whether his intoxication was manifested by boisterousness and by loud and violent discourse, but it was sufficient to authorize the jury to resolve all these questions against him, and to find him guilty of the offense charged. The overruling of the motion for a new trial (based upon the usual general grounds only) was not error.

Decided November 11, 1931. Clarence E. Adams, for plaintiff in error. R. Howard Gordon, solicitor, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke, J., eoneurs. Bloodworth, J., dissents.

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

Broyles, O. J.

The evidence was in acute conflict as to whether the accused was in an intoxicated condition on a public highway, and as to whether his condition was caused by the excessive use of intoxicating [295]*295wines, beers, or liquors, and as to whether his intoxication was manifested by boisterousness and by loud and violent discourse, but it was sufficient to authorize the jury to resolve all these questions against him, and to find him guilty of the offense charged. The overruling of the motion for a new trial (based upon the usual general grounds only) was not error.

Decided November 11, 1931. Clarence E. Adams, for plaintiff in error. R. Howard Gordon, solicitor, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke, J., eoneurs. Bloodworth, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 S.E. 270, 44 Ga. App. 294, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parham-v-state-gactapp-1931.