Pierce v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pierce v. State

153 S.E. 434, 41 Ga. App. 498, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 954

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 14, 1930

Docket20486

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 153 S.E. 434 (Pierce 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

Pierce v. State, 153 S.E. 434, 41 Ga. App. 498, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 954 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. Special grounds 1 and 2 are each based upon alleged errors in the charge of the court, it being alleged in each that there was no evidence to support it. Neither ground is erroneous for the reason alleged. Moreover, several unimpeached witnesses swore positively and without contradiction that each had bought liquor directly from the defendant, and, therefore, the evidence demanded the verdict. When this is true “it is immaterial what the judge charged or failed to charge the jury.” See Cherry v. State, 38 Ga. App. 388 (2) (144 S. E. 50), and cit.

2. In special ground 3 the court is alleged to have erred in admitting certain testimony over objection. This testimony was properly admitted; but conceding that it was erroneously admitted, “the evidence is overwhelming that the defendant is guilty,” and where this is so, an error in the admission of testimony will “not operate so as to require a new trial.” Hagar v. State, 71 Ga. 167 (3), and cit.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. Special grounds 1 and 2 are each based upon alleged errors in the charge of the court, it being alleged in each that there was no evidence to support it. Neither ground is erroneous for the reason alleged. Moreover, several unimpeached witnesses swore positively and without contradiction that each had bought liquor directly from the defendant, and, therefore, the evidence demanded the verdict. When this is true “it is immaterial what the judge charged or failed to charge the jury.” See Cherry v. State, 38 Ga. App. 388 (2) (144 S. E. 50), and cit.

2. In special ground 3 the court is alleged to have erred in admitting certain testimony over objection. This testimony was properly admitted; but conceding that it was erroneously admitted, “the evidence is overwhelming that the defendant is guilty,” and where this is so, an error in the admission of testimony will “not operate so as to require a new trial.” Hagar v. State, 71 Ga. 167 (3), and cit.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 S.E. 434, 41 Ga. App. 498, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 954, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierce-v-state-gactapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack