Reece v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Reece v. State

305 S.E.2d 620, 166 Ga. App. 886, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 2361

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 17, 1983

Docket66297

StatusPublished

This text of 305 S.E.2d 620 (Reece 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

Reece v. State, 305 S.E.2d 620, 166 Ga. App. 886, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 2361 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Judge.

The defendant was charged by accusation with selling beer without a license, selling beer on Sunday, and possessing malt beverages for sale. The accusation form in each case included the sworn affidavit of the prosecutor followed by the accusation executed by the District Attorney. The trial court determined that each affidavit represented a distinct offense from the accusation it obviously supported. The trial court thus determined that six separate offenses were charged, rather than three, and charged the jury accordingly. However, he withdrew from the jury’s consideration one of the possession counts based on his determination that only one such count was supported by the evidence. The jury found the defendant guilty of one count of selling beer without a license and one count of selling beer on Sunday. Held:

“While it is well established that the jury, although judges of the law and the facts in criminal cases, must take the law from the court, yet it has been frequently held . . . that if the trial judge should erroneously instruct the jury as to the law, and the jury should nevertheless find a correct verdict under the evidence and the law applicable thereto, the verdict will stand.” Spence v. State, 7 Ga. App. 825 (2) (68 SE 443) (1910). In the case before us the jury was in possession of the accusations with supporting affidavits. Its findings, supported by the evidence, indicate that it was not confused by the trial court’s charge concerning the number of offenses. Under these facts, we find the court’s error harmless.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Carley, J., concur.

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

Banke, Judge.

The defendant was charged by accusation with selling beer without a license, selling beer on Sunday, and possessing malt beverages for sale. The accusation form in each case included the sworn affidavit of the prosecutor followed by the accusation executed by the District Attorney. The trial court determined that each affidavit represented a distinct offense from the accusation it obviously supported. The trial court thus determined that six separate offenses were charged, rather than three, and charged the jury accordingly. However, he withdrew from the jury’s consideration one of the possession counts based on his determination that only one such count was supported by the evidence. The jury found the defendant guilty of one count of selling beer without a license and one count of selling beer on Sunday. Held:

“While it is well established that the jury, although judges of the law and the facts in criminal cases, must take the law from the court, yet it has been frequently held . . . that if the trial judge should erroneously instruct the jury as to the law, and the jury should nevertheless find a correct verdict under the evidence and the law applicable thereto, the verdict will stand.” Spence v. State, 7 Ga. App. 825 (2) (68 SE 443) (1910). In the case before us the jury was in possession of the accusations with supporting affidavits. Its findings, supported by the evidence, indicate that it was not confused by the trial court’s charge concerning the number of offenses. Under these facts, we find the court’s error harmless.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Carley, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 S.E.2d 620, 166 Ga. App. 886, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 2361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reece-v-state-gactapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack