Tuten v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Tuten v. State

137 S.E. 853, 36 Ga. App. 662, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 229

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 12, 1927

Docket17940

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 137 S.E. 853 (Tuten 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

Tuten v. State, 137 S.E. 853, 36 Ga. App. 662, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 229 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodwobtii, J.

1. In view of tlie particular facts of this ease and of the entire charge of the court, the judge did not err in charging the jury as follows: “If, however, you should find from the facts and evidence in the case, that the defendant did pick up the whisky, that he did take the whisky into his possessoin, custody and control, took it under such possession and control as to pass it on to another, although the other party only took possession of it for the purpose of taking a drink, I charge you that the party who took the whisky into his possession for the purpose of passing it on to another, if you find that to be the facts in this case, then under the law you will be authorized to find the defendant guilty.” Barbour v. State, 21 Ga. App. 243 (94 S. E. 272); Brantley v. State, 28 Ga. App. 536 (3, 4) (112 S. E. 170).

2. There was some evidence to support the verdict, and the judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

3. The trial judge did not err in overruling the motion to disqualify himself from passing upon the motion for a new trial. Parker v. State, 146 Ga. 131 (90 S. E. 859); Shuford v. Shuford, 141 Ga. 407 (3) (81 S. E. 115). Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodwobtii, J.

1. In view of tlie particular facts of this ease and of the entire charge of the court, the judge did not err in charging the jury as follows: “If, however, you should find from the facts and evidence in the case, that the defendant did pick up the whisky, that he did take the whisky into his possessoin, custody and control, took it under such possession and control as to pass it on to another, although the other party only took possession of it for the purpose of taking a drink, I charge you that the party who took the whisky into his possession for the purpose of passing it on to another, if you find that to be the facts in this case, then under the law you will be authorized to find the defendant guilty.” Barbour v. State, 21 Ga. App. 243 (94 S. E. 272); Brantley v. State, 28 Ga. App. 536 (3, 4) (112 S. E. 170).

2. There was some evidence to support the verdict, and the judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

3. The trial judge did not err in overruling the motion to disqualify himself from passing upon the motion for a new trial. Parker v. State, 146 Ga. 131 (90 S. E. 859); Shuford v. Shuford, 141 Ga. 407 (3) (81 S. E. 115). Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 S.E. 853, 36 Ga. App. 662, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tuten-v-state-gactapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack