Ryals v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ryals v. State

97 S.E. 444, 23 Ga. App. 86, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 50

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 16, 1918

Docket10093

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 97 S.E. 444 (Ryals 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

Ryals v. State, 97 S.E. 444, 23 Ga. App. 86, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 50 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Harwell, J.

1. “Any statement or conduct of a person, indicating a consciousness of guilt, where such person is, at the time or thereafter, charged with or suspected of crime, is admissible against him upon his trial for committing it.” Eixon v. State, 130 Ga. 479, 482 (62 S. E. 14),’ and cases therein cited.' Under this ruling the 4th and 5th special grounds of the motion for a new trial, complaining of the admission of certain testimony regarding incriminating statements made by the defendant, are without merit.

2. There was some evidence to support the verdict finding the defendant guilty of manufacturing’ liquor; and, it having the approval of the trial judge, this court is without authority to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth, J., and Broyles, P. J., concur.

Indictment for- manufacturing intoxicating liquor; from Decatur superior court—Judge Harrell. August 17, 1918.

W. V. Custer, for plaintiff in error. R. C. Bell, solicitor-general, F..A. Hooper, contra.

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

Harwell, J.

1. “Any statement or conduct of a person, indicating a consciousness of guilt, where such person is, at the time or thereafter, charged with or suspected of crime, is admissible against him upon his trial for committing it.” Eixon v. State, 130 Ga. 479, 482 (62 S. E. 14),’ and cases therein cited.' Under this ruling the 4th and 5th special grounds of the motion for a new trial, complaining of the admission of certain testimony regarding incriminating statements made by the defendant, are without merit.

2. There was some evidence to support the verdict finding the defendant guilty of manufacturing’ liquor; and, it having the approval of the trial judge, this court is without authority to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth, J., and Broyles, P. J., concur.

Indictment for- manufacturing intoxicating liquor; from Decatur superior court—Judge Harrell. August 17, 1918.

W. V. Custer, for plaintiff in error. R. C. Bell, solicitor-general, F..A. Hooper, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 S.E. 444, 23 Ga. App. 86, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryals-v-state-gactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack