Scoggins v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Scoggins v. State

179 S.E. 205, 51 Ga. App. 6, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 511

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 8, 1935

Docket24543

StatusPublished

This text of 179 S.E. 205 (Scoggins 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

Scoggins v. State, 179 S.E. 205, 51 Ga. App. 6, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 511 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, O. J.

I. “A verdict is not illegal because it is entered on the wrong paper.” Liverpool &c. Ins. Co. v. Peoples Bank, 143 Ga. 355 (2-a) (85 S. E. 114). In the instant ease the accused was tried on an accusation charging him with possessing whisky. During the trial another accusation, showing a previous conviction of the defendant for a similar offense, was put in evidence, and both accusations were taken to the jury room. By inadvertence the jury wrote its verdict on the accusation which had been admitted as evidence. Under the foregoing ruling, the verdict was not illegal because it was written on the wrong paper. See also Roberts v. State, 14 Ga. 18, 19; Harris v. Barden, 24 Ga. 72; Patterson v. Murphy, 63 Ga. 281; Sapp v. Parrish, 3 Ga. App. 234 (2), 236 (59 S. E. 821).

2. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence, and the overruling of the certiorari was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., eoncw.

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

Broyles, O. J.

I. “A verdict is not illegal because it is entered on the wrong paper.” Liverpool &c. Ins. Co. v. Peoples Bank, 143 Ga. 355 (2-a) (85 S. E. 114). In the instant ease the accused was tried on an accusation charging him with possessing whisky. During the trial another accusation, showing a previous conviction of the defendant for a similar offense, was put in evidence, and both accusations were taken to the jury room. By inadvertence the jury wrote its verdict on the accusation which had been admitted as evidence. Under the foregoing ruling, the verdict was not illegal because it was written on the wrong paper. See also Roberts v. State, 14 Ga. 18, 19; Harris v. Barden, 24 Ga. 72; Patterson v. Murphy, 63 Ga. 281; Sapp v. Parrish, 3 Ga. App. 234 (2), 236 (59 S. E. 821).

2. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence, and the overruling of the certiorari was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., eoncw.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.E. 205, 51 Ga. App. 6, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scoggins-v-state-gactapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack