Terry v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Terry v. State

136 S.E. 476, 36 Ga. App. 305, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 41

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 11, 1927

Docket17767

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 136 S.E. 476 (Terry 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

Terry v. State, 136 S.E. 476, 36 Ga. App. 305, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 41 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The defendant was charged with possessing whisky, and, under all the facts of the case, it was not error to admit evidence that on other occasions, some.two or three months before the date of the offense charged, he was in possession of large quantities of whisky and was engaged in the business of transporting and selling whisky. This evidence was admissible to prove scienter, or guilty knowledge of the accused, and to show his intent or motive under the circumstances. See, in this connection, Cole v. State, 120 Ga. 485 (1) (48 S. E. 156); Frank v. State, 141 Ga. 243 (80 S. E. 1016); Jones v. State, 32 Ga. App. 7 (1) (122 S. E. 738); Reddick v. State, 15 Ga. App. 437 (2), 442, 443 (83 S. E. 675); 1 Wharton on Criminal Evidence (10th ed.), § 31.

2. The conviction was amply authorized by the evidence, and the overruling of the certiorari was not error for any reason assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The defendant was charged with possessing whisky, and, under all the facts of the case, it was not error to admit evidence that on other occasions, some.two or three months before the date of the offense charged, he was in possession of large quantities of whisky and was engaged in the business of transporting and selling whisky. This evidence was admissible to prove scienter, or guilty knowledge of the accused, and to show his intent or motive under the circumstances. See, in this connection, Cole v. State, 120 Ga. 485 (1) (48 S. E. 156); Frank v. State, 141 Ga. 243 (80 S. E. 1016); Jones v. State, 32 Ga. App. 7 (1) (122 S. E. 738); Reddick v. State, 15 Ga. App. 437 (2), 442, 443 (83 S. E. 675); 1 Wharton on Criminal Evidence (10th ed.), § 31.

2. The conviction was amply authorized by the evidence, and the overruling of the certiorari was not error for any reason assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 S.E. 476, 36 Ga. App. 305, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terry-v-state-gactapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack