Willerson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Willerson v. State

125 S.E.2d 574, 105 Ga. App. 710, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 1010

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 4, 1962

Docket39382

StatusPublished

This text of 125 S.E.2d 574 (Willerson 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

Willerson v. State, 125 S.E.2d 574, 105 Ga. App. 710, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 1010 (Ga. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The defendant was tried and convicted for manufacturing whisky. His motion for new trial, based on the usual general grounds only, was overruled and he now assigns error on such judgment adverse to him. The evidence adduced on the trial of the case showed that the defendant was arrested at the site of the still, that he had been around such still for at least twenty or thirty minutes, that he walked back and forth between the still (which was in operation) , and a water pump (their water was being pumped from a spring to the still), that he was heard picking up jars, and was seen leaning over a barrel containing mash or whisky, and upon being apprehended gave warning to two other men who were engaged in operating the still so that they could flee. Held:

The evidence authorized the verdict and whether the defendant’s explanation as to his presence at the still was sufficient to acquit him was a question for the jury and such question was decided adversely to his contentions. See Chester v. State, 74 Ga. App. 667 (2) (41 SE2d 162); Blanton v. State, 91 Ga. App. 406 (85 SE2d 830); Mercer v. State, 100 Ga. App. 196 (1) (110 SE2d 558).

Judgment affirmed.

Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.

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

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The defendant was tried and convicted for manufacturing whisky. His motion for new trial, based on the usual general grounds only, was overruled and he now assigns error on such judgment adverse to him. The evidence adduced on the trial of the case showed that the defendant was arrested at the site of the still, that he had been around such still for at least twenty or thirty minutes, that he walked back and forth between the still (which was in operation) , and a water pump (their water was being pumped from a spring to the still), that he was heard picking up jars, and was seen leaning over a barrel containing mash or whisky, and upon being apprehended gave warning to two other men who were engaged in operating the still so that they could flee. Held:

The evidence authorized the verdict and whether the defendant’s explanation as to his presence at the still was sufficient to acquit him was a question for the jury and such question was decided adversely to his contentions. See Chester v. State, 74 Ga. App. 667 (2) (41 SE2d 162); Blanton v. State, 91 Ga. App. 406 (85 SE2d 830); Mercer v. State, 100 Ga. App. 196 (1) (110 SE2d 558).

Judgment affirmed.

Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 S.E.2d 574, 105 Ga. App. 710, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 1010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willerson-v-state-gactapp-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack