Rhodes v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rhodes v. State

128 S.E. 217, 33 Ga. App. 827, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 741

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 14, 1925

Docket16354

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 128 S.E. 217 (Rhodes 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

Rhodes v. State, 128 S.E. 217, 33 Ga. App. 827, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 741 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. Tlie accused was on trial on the charge of manufacturing intoxicating liquors. Part of his statement to the jury was as follows: “Gentlemen of the jury, as for making liquor, I have never made a drop in my life, I don’t know a thing about the copper still, and they have never seen me there at one, and I will go further and say they never will, . . and as far as that is concerned I am not afraid of any officer in the State of Georgia coming in and saying that they saw me. at a still; that is one thing I don’t fool witti.” (Italics ours.) '

Held: (a) Under the ruling in Cowart v. State, 33 Ga. App. 122 (125 S. E. 770), this court can not hold, ns a matter of law,.'that' the [828]*828judge erred in ruling that the accused, by his statement to the jury, had put in issue his general character as to making whisky, and in permitting the State thereafter to introduce evidence as to his general reputation in the community in which he lived for whisky making.

Decided May 14, 1925. Pierce Brothers, Hammond & Kennedy, for plaintiff in error. George Hains, solicitor-general, John M. Graham, contra.

(b) It was not error for the court to charge the jury upon the subject of good character.

2. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. Tlie accused was on trial on the charge of manufacturing intoxicating liquors. Part of his statement to the jury was as follows: “Gentlemen of the jury, as for making liquor, I have never made a drop in my life, I don’t know a thing about the copper still, and they have never seen me there at one, and I will go further and say they never will, . . and as far as that is concerned I am not afraid of any officer in the State of Georgia coming in and saying that they saw me. at a still; that is one thing I don’t fool witti.” (Italics ours.) '

Held: (a) Under the ruling in Cowart v. State, 33 Ga. App. 122 (125 S. E. 770), this court can not hold, ns a matter of law,.'that' the [828]*828judge erred in ruling that the accused, by his statement to the jury, had put in issue his general character as to making whisky, and in permitting the State thereafter to introduce evidence as to his general reputation in the community in which he lived for whisky making.

Decided May 14, 1925. Pierce Brothers, Hammond & Kennedy, for plaintiff in error. George Hains, solicitor-general, John M. Graham, contra.

(b) It was not error for the court to charge the jury upon the subject of good character.

2. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 S.E. 217, 33 Ga. App. 827, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rhodes-v-state-gactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack