Yeates v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Yeates v. State

117 S.E. 108, 30 Ga. App. 105, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 279

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 10, 1923

Docket14170

StatusPublished

This text of 117 S.E. 108 (Yeates 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

Yeates v. State, 117 S.E. 108, 30 Ga. App. 105, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 279 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The defendant in this case, was convicted of violating the prohibition statute. The evidence authorized the conviction.

In view of the note of the trial judge to the effect that “ the jury were instructed that they had nothing to do with this verdict, and no objections were made to its going out not covered up,” there is no merit in the single special ground of motion for new trial, wherein the defendant complains that the jury had with them in the jury-room an accusation which had been introduced in evidence, upon which was entered a verdict of guilty against him. It was not error, for any reason assigned, to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodioorth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

The defendant in this case, was convicted of violating the prohibition statute. The evidence authorized the conviction.

In view of the note of the trial judge to the effect that “ the jury were instructed that they had nothing to do with this verdict, and no objections were made to its going out not covered up,” there is no merit in the single special ground of motion for new trial, wherein the defendant complains that the jury had with them in the jury-room an accusation which had been introduced in evidence, upon which was entered a verdict of guilty against him. It was not error, for any reason assigned, to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodioorth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 S.E. 108, 30 Ga. App. 105, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yeates-v-state-gactapp-1923.