Whitehead v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Whitehead v. State

158 S.E. 345, 43 Ga. App. 186, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 235

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 14, 1931

Docket21139

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 158 S.E. 345 (Whitehead 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

Whitehead v. State, 158 S.E. 345, 43 Ga. App. 186, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 235 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodwortii, J.

The accused was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquors. In his motion for a new trial he alleges that the court erred in allowing a witness for the State to testify as follows: “I came down to Summerville that Sunday morning (the day he searched defendant’s house), and the sheriff gave us a search warrant, gave it to me, and said he had a report that the defendant had whisky there.” This testimony was objected to as being hearsay. The court overruled the objection to the evidence, stating that he admitted it “merely for the purpose of explaining why the witness went there (to defendant’s house), and not as having any probative value on the question of defendant’s guilt or innocence.” Conceding that it was error to allow such evidence to go to the jury, this -ruling does not require the grant of a new trial, for the undisputed evidence shows that whisky was found in the defendant’s residence.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

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

Bloodwortii, J.

The accused was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquors. In his motion for a new trial he alleges that the court erred in allowing a witness for the State to testify as follows: “I came down to Summerville that Sunday morning (the day he searched defendant’s house), and the sheriff gave us a search warrant, gave it to me, and said he had a report that the defendant had whisky there.” This testimony was objected to as being hearsay. The court overruled the objection to the evidence, stating that he admitted it “merely for the purpose of explaining why the witness went there (to defendant’s house), and not as having any probative value on the question of defendant’s guilt or innocence.” Conceding that it was error to allow such evidence to go to the jury, this -ruling does not require the grant of a new trial, for the undisputed evidence shows that whisky was found in the defendant’s residence.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 S.E. 345, 43 Ga. App. 186, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitehead-v-state-gactapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack