Wallace v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Wallace v. State

162 S.E. 162, 44 Ga. App. 571, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 384

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 12, 1932

Docket21978

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 162 S.E. 162 (Wallace 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

Wallace v. State, 162 S.E. 162, 44 Ga. App. 571, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 384 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. On the trial of one charged with operating an automobile upon a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, it is not necessary for the State, in order to secure a conviction, “to show that the accused was drunk, but it is sufficient if the State shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused [while driving the car] was under the influence of some intoxicant as charged, to any extent whatsoever, whether drunk or not.” Chapman v. State, 40 Ga. App. 725 (2) (151 S. E. 410), and cit.

2. Under the foregoing ruling and the facts of the instant case, the verdict was authorized, and, the finding of the jury having been approved by the trial judge, this court is without authority to reverse the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial, based upon the usual general grounds only.

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. On the trial of one charged with operating an automobile upon a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, it is not necessary for the State, in order to secure a conviction, “to show that the accused was drunk, but it is sufficient if the State shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused [while driving the car] was under the influence of some intoxicant as charged, to any extent whatsoever, whether drunk or not.” Chapman v. State, 40 Ga. App. 725 (2) (151 S. E. 410), and cit.

2. Under the foregoing ruling and the facts of the instant case, the verdict was authorized, and, the finding of the jury having been approved by the trial judge, this court is without authority to reverse the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial, based upon the usual general grounds only.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 S.E. 162, 44 Ga. App. 571, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallace-v-state-gactapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack