Pearce v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pearce v. State

111 S.E. 749, 28 Ga. App. 483, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 633

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 13, 1922

Docket13319

StatusPublished

This text of 111 S.E. 749 (Pearce 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

Pearce v. State, 111 S.E. 749, 28 Ga. App. 483, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 633 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. " The ground of a motion for a new trial which complains of the admission of specified testimony must state the name of the witness whose testimony is complained of.” Rountree v. State, 26 Ga. App. 420 (106 S. E. 557).

2. In view of the note of the trial judge, the third special ground of the amendment to the motion for a new tridl is without merit.

3. The defendant’s conviction not depending entirely upon circumstantial evidence, it was not error, in the absence of an appropriate request, to fail to instruct the jury upon the law of circumstantial evidence.

4. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Accusation of' violation of liquor law; from city court of Macon — Judge Gunn. January 17, 1922.

C. A. Cunningham, O. J. Wimberly, for plaintiff in error. Roy W. Moore, solicitor, contra.

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

Luke, J.

1. " The ground of a motion for a new trial which complains of the admission of specified testimony must state the name of the witness whose testimony is complained of.” Rountree v. State, 26 Ga. App. 420 (106 S. E. 557).

2. In view of the note of the trial judge, the third special ground of the amendment to the motion for a new tridl is without merit.

3. The defendant’s conviction not depending entirely upon circumstantial evidence, it was not error, in the absence of an appropriate request, to fail to instruct the jury upon the law of circumstantial evidence.

4. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Accusation of' violation of liquor law; from city court of Macon — Judge Gunn. January 17, 1922.

C. A. Cunningham, O. J. Wimberly, for plaintiff in error. Roy W. Moore, solicitor, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.E. 749, 28 Ga. App. 483, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pearce-v-state-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

4. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack