Peacock v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Peacock v. State

143 S.E. 605, 38 Ga. App. 268, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 180

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 12, 1928

Docket18920

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 143 S.E. 605 (Peacock 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

Peacock v. State, 143 S.E. 605, 38 Ga. App. 268, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 180 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

Sam Peacock was convicted under section 389 of the Penal Code (1910) of maintaining “a gaming house and room where persons were permitted, with his knowledge, to come together and play for money and other things of value.” Over a timely objection that the evidence was irrelevant and hearsay, and that its admission would put the defendant’s character in issue when he himself had not done so, the court permitted several witnesses to testify as follows: “He has the reputation among the officers as a gambler; he bears the reputation of being a gambler.” This evidence was objectionable for the reasons assigned, and the court erred in overruling the only special ground of the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

Sam Peacock was convicted under section 389 of the Penal Code (1910) of maintaining “a gaming house and room where persons were permitted, with his knowledge, to come together and play for money and other things of value.” Over a timely objection that the evidence was irrelevant and hearsay, and that its admission would put the defendant’s character in issue when he himself had not done so, the court permitted several witnesses to testify as follows: “He has the reputation among the officers as a gambler; he bears the reputation of being a gambler.” This evidence was objectionable for the reasons assigned, and the court erred in overruling the only special ground of the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 S.E. 605, 38 Ga. App. 268, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peacock-v-state-gactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack