Samuels v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Samuels v. State

158 S.E. 375, 43 Ga. App. 194, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 240

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 14, 1931

Docket21182

StatusPublished

This text of 158 S.E. 375 (Samuels 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

Samuels v. State, 158 S.E. 375, 43 Ga. App. 194, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 240 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of possessing whisky. ’ The only witness who testified about the alleged whisky transaction stated on his cross-examination as follows: “I could not say positively that this was the negro. This negro (indicating defendant) looks a little older than the negro I bought the liquor from. I would not identify this man (indicating the defendant) as being the man, only he is about the same size and color. This negro here (indicating the defendant) looks older. All negroes are not about the same color, some are bright and some dark. I know lots of negroes the same color. I have never seen this negro before to-day that I know of. I would not swear [195]*195that I ever saw him before, only what he told me. I would not swear positively that he is the same negro.”

The verdict of guilty was not authorized by the evidence, and the court’s refusal to grant a new trial was error.

Judgment reversed.

Lulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of possessing whisky. ’ The only witness who testified about the alleged whisky transaction stated on his cross-examination as follows: “I could not say positively that this was the negro. This negro (indicating defendant) looks a little older than the negro I bought the liquor from. I would not identify this man (indicating the defendant) as being the man, only he is about the same size and color. This negro here (indicating the defendant) looks older. All negroes are not about the same color, some are bright and some dark. I know lots of negroes the same color. I have never seen this negro before to-day that I know of. I would not swear [195]*195that I ever saw him before, only what he told me. I would not swear positively that he is the same negro.”

The verdict of guilty was not authorized by the evidence, and the court’s refusal to grant a new trial was error.

Judgment reversed.

Lulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 S.E. 375, 43 Ga. App. 194, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samuels-v-state-gactapp-1931.