Austin v. State

Decision Date07 July 1933
Docket NumberNo. 23166.,23166.
Citation47 Ga.App. 191,170 S.E. 86
PartiesAUSTIN. v. STATE.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Error from Superior Court, Floyd County; James Maddox, Judge.

Talmadge Austin brings error.

Affirmed.

Alec Harris, of Rome, for plaintiff in error.

Jas. F. Kelly, Sol. Gen., of Rome, and J. Ralph Rosser, of La Fayette, for the State.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

GUERRY, Judge.

1. "It is not necessary for the state to show that the accused was drunk; but it is sufficient if the state shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused was under the influence of some intoxicant as charged, to any extent whatsoever, whether drunk or not." Hart v. State, 26 Ga. App. 64, 105 S. E. 383; Chapman v. State, 40 Ga. App. 725, 151 S. E. 410.

2. It would make no difference to one charged with operating an automobile over a public highway of this state while under the influence of intoxicating liquor that he had just gotten under the wheel of the car and had gone only a few yards when he was stopped by the officers and arrested. Such act would come within the meaning of the word "operation" as used in the statute prohibiting the above offense. See Ga. Laws 1927-, p. 238, § 13.

3. The evidence as to the condition of the accused was in conflict. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, which settled this issue. The verdict has the approval of the trial judge, and this court finds no reason to reverse the judgment.

4. The court, therefore, did not err in overruling the motion for a new.trial.

Judgment affirmed.

BROYLES, C. J., and MacINTYRE, J., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • State v. Glanzman
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • January 26, 1949
    ...212, 42 A.2d 438; Holley v. State, 25 Ala.App. 260, 144 So. 535; Wallace v. State, 44 Ga.App. 571, 162 S.E. 162 (2d case); Austin v. State, 47 Ga.App. 191, 170 S.E. 86. text of the remarks by the court (criticised by appellant) clearly show he was merely attempting to get appellant, when on......
  • State v. Boag
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1936
    ...v. State, 25 Ala.App. 260, 144 So. 535; Id., 225 Ala. 597, 144 So. 537; Phillips v. State, 25 Ala.App. 286, 145 So. 169; Austin v. State, 47 Ga.App. 191, 170 S.E. 86. In other words, the elements of the crime, under statute, are, first, the driving or operation of an automobile; second, on ......
  • Flournoy v. State, 39577
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • October 15, 1962
    ...we have found are ones in which the evidence showed some motion of the vehicle, although for a very short distance. Austin v. State, 47 Ga.App. 191(2), 170 S.E. 86; Echols v. State, 104 Ga.App. 695, 122 S.E.2d Code Ann. § 68-1503(2)(c) defines driver as: 'Every person who drives or is in ac......
  • Harper v. State, 35510
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 3, 1955
    ...44 Ga.App. 571, 162 S.E. 162; Cavender v. State, 46 Ga.App. 782, 169 S.E. 253; Moye v. State, 46 Ga.App. 727, 169 S.E. 59; Austin v. State, 47 Ga.App. 191, 170 S.E. 86; Lanier v. State, 52 Ga.App. 459, 183 S.E. 658; Parker v. State, 53 Ga.App. 344, 182 S.E. 598; Stegall v. State, 53 Ga.App.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT