Pickering v. State

185 S.E.2d 614, 124 Ga. App. 656, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 1062
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedOctober 21, 1971
Docket46534
StatusPublished

This text of 185 S.E.2d 614 (Pickering 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
Pickering v. State, 185 S.E.2d 614, 124 Ga. App. 656, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 1062 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971).

Opinion

Pannell, Judge.

The defendant appellant was indicted for committing "the offense of misdemeanor for that the said accused on the 14 day of February in the year 1969, in the county aforesaid, did then and there, unlawfully and with force and [657]*657arms, did unlawfully keep, maintain, employ and carry on a certain scheme and device for the hazarding of money and other things of value, said scheme and device being known as a roulette wheel, contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof.” He was tried and convicted and his motion for new trial was overruled; whereupon he appealed to this court. Held:

Argued September 8, 1971 Decided October 21, 1971. Stow, Garvin & Glenn, James A. Glenn, Jr., for appellant. Jeff C. Wayne, District Attorney, J. Nathan Deal, for appellee.

1. Where one is so indicted it is not error to fail to charge the law relating to carrying on a lottery as to the elements of consideration, prize and chance, in the absence of a timely written request to do so. Nickolas v. State, 114 Ga. App. 306 (151 SE2d 168); Johnson v. State, 64 Ga. App. 334 (13 SE2d 116); Lowe v. State, 64 Ga. App. 336 (13 SE2d 104).

2. The evidence as to venue, though conflicting, was sufficient to authorize a finding that the alleged crime was committed in the county charged.

3. The evidence was sufficient, in view of the surrounding circumstances and the defendant’s statement to the officers made after being advised of his constitutional rights, to authorize the conviction under the indictment, and no error otherwise appearing, the judgment overruling the motion for new trial is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., and Deen, J., concur.

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

Related

Nickolas v. State
151 S.E.2d 168 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1966)
Johnson v. State
13 S.E.2d 116 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1941)
Lowe v. State
13 S.E.2d 104 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
185 S.E.2d 614, 124 Ga. App. 656, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 1062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pickering-v-state-gactapp-1971.