Powers v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Powers v. State

118 S.E. 61, 30 Ga. App. 371, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 473

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 12, 1923

Docket14549

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 118 S.E. 61 (Powers 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

Powers v. State, 118 S.E. 61, 30 Ga. App. 371, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 473 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. In his brief counsel for the plaintiff in error insists that a new trial should be granted because “the burden is upon the State to prove that the offense was committed, if committed at all, prior to the finding of the indictment.” The indictment, which charged the defendant with selling intoxicating liquor, and with keeping it on hand at his place of business, was found at “ September call term, 1921.” The witness for the State, who testified to the purchase of whisky from the defendant swore that he bought the whisky in the February prior to the time he was carried before the grand jury “ at the September call term, 1921.” This evidence was sufficient to show that the crime was committed “ prior to the finding of the bill of indictment.” Moreover, this particular point was not specifically raised in the motion for a new trial, as required by the act of 1911 (Ga. L. 1911, p. 149; Parks Penal Code, § 1101 (a)). See Ford v. State, 21 Ga. App. 499 (1) (94 S. E. 627).

2. Only the general grounds were contained in the motion for a new trial, and the evidence abundantly supported the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. In his brief counsel for the plaintiff in error insists that a new trial should be granted because “the burden is upon the State to prove that the offense was committed, if committed at all, prior to the finding of the indictment.” The indictment, which charged the defendant with selling intoxicating liquor, and with keeping it on hand at his place of business, was found at “ September call term, 1921.” The witness for the State, who testified to the purchase of whisky from the defendant swore that he bought the whisky in the February prior to the time he was carried before the grand jury “ at the September call term, 1921.” This evidence was sufficient to show that the crime was committed “ prior to the finding of the bill of indictment.” Moreover, this particular point was not specifically raised in the motion for a new trial, as required by the act of 1911 (Ga. L. 1911, p. 149; Parks Penal Code, § 1101 (a)). See Ford v. State, 21 Ga. App. 499 (1) (94 S. E. 627).

2. Only the general grounds were contained in the motion for a new trial, and the evidence abundantly supported the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 S.E. 61, 30 Ga. App. 371, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/powers-v-state-gactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack