Bell v. State

• Decision Date: 06 March 1918
• Docket Number: 9394.
• Parties: BELL v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

95 S.E. 270

21 Ga.App. 788

BELL v. STATE.

No. 9394.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Second Division

March 6, 1918

Syllabus by the Court.

The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict against the plaintiff in error, who, with another, was found guilty under an indictment charging them with violation of the provisions of the prohibition law as to possession of liquors.

Error from Superior Court, Clarke County; A. J. Cobb, Judge.

Andrew Bell was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law, and he brings error. Affirmed.

Austin Bell and Thomas & Thomas, all of Athens, for plaintiff in error.

W. O Dean, Sol. Gen., of Monroe, for the State.

BLOODWORTH J.

The motion for a new trial contains only the general grounds. The following is the opinion of Judge Cobb, who presided at the trial, as contained in the record and as delivered and ordered filed in connection with his order overruling the motion for new trial:

"These defendants [Andrew Bell and Moses Shaw] were indicted for having the possession of liquor in violation of the law, were tried jointly, and each was convicted, and Andrew Bell's motion for new trial is now for decision. In passing upon the motion for new trial, that view of the evidence which is most unfavorable to the accused must be taken, for every presumption and every inference is in favor of a verdict. The evidence demanded a verdict of guilty in the case of Moses Shaw, for under his statement he was in possession of liquor, even though according to his version it was only for the purpose of taking a drink. The evidence against Andrew Bell is circumstantial. The jury had the right to disregard entirely the statements of the accused, and having returned a verdict of guilty, it is to be assumed that they did disregard it. Even if the statement of one accused is evidence for his codefendant jointly tried with him, the jury has a right to disregard the statement in all of its bearings. With the statements eliminated, the question is whether the evidence of the state is sufficient to authorize a verdict of guilty as to Andrew Bell. In my opinion it is sufficient to establish his guilt as principal in the second degree; and as in misdemeanors all are principals, the verdict is sufficiently supported. Under this view of the case I feel constrained to overrule the motion for new trial. An order to that effect will be entered upon the original motion."

We agree with the...