King v. State
| Decision Date | 16 September 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 34187,34187,2 |
| Parties | KING v. STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. (a) It is not error to fail to charge the law as to circumstantial evidence where the conviction does not depend entirely upon such evidence.
(b) The theory of misadventure and accident having been raised, if at all, only in the statement of the defendant, it was not error to fail to charge on this theory without request.
2. The evidence amply supported the verdict, and, having the approval of the trial court, will not be disturbed by this court.
William King was tried and convicted in the City Court of Swainsboro upon an accusation in two counts, charging the defendant with operating a motor vehicle on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquors, and with operating said automobile on the wrong side of the road and at an excessive speed in disregard for the safety of other persons and property. Witnesses for the State, members of the Georgia State Patrol and Georgia Bureau of Investigation, testified that in response to a call they went to U. S. Highway 56; that they met the defendant, who approached them around a curve on the wrong side of the road forcing them into a ditch; that they turned around and followed him two or three miles, clocking his speed at an average of eighty to eighty five miles an hour; that a part of the distance he traveled ninety and over; that when they stopped him he was very drunk. The defendant made a statement that As to the speed, he stated, 'The four wheels on the ground were warped and * * * if anybody can hold it over fifty five or sixty miles an hour I'll take my hat off to them.'
The defendant filed a motion for a new trial on the general grounds which was later amended by the addition of two special grounds, and the overruling of this motion is assigned as error.
H. Alonzo Woods, Swainsboro, for plaintiff in error.
Darius N. Brown, Sol., Swainsboro, for defendant in error.
TOWNSEND, Judge (after stating the foregoing facts.)
1. Special ground 4 of the amended motion for a new trial contends that the trial court erred in failing to charge without request on the law of circumstantial evidence. The testimony of the State's witnesses, both as to the defendant's drunkenness and as to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meeks v. Lunsford
...time and place (Grier v. State, 72 Ga.App. 633(1), 34 S.E.2d 642; Johnson v. State, 69 Ga.App. 377(1), 25 S.E.2d 584; King v. State, 86 Ga.App. 786, 72 S.E.2d 502), but this may be done only after a proper foundation has been laid to show the basis for such testimony (Andrews v. State, 102 ......
-
Bobo v. State
...of the court to charge in this regard was not, therefore, error. Acker v. State, 78 Ga.App. 819, 820(e), 52 S.E.2d 559; King v. State, 86 Ga.App. 786(1), 72 S.E.2d 502. 3. Special grounds 2, 3 and 4 complain because the trial court charged in substance the provisions of § 11(c) of the Reven......
- Waits v. State, 34246
-
Lyons v. State, 35112
...of circumstantial evidence to authorize the defendant's conviction, in the absence of a timely written request. King v. State, 86 Ga.App. 786, 72 S.E.2d 502. 2. From the evidence set forth in the foregoing division, it is apparent that the verdict was authorized. Austin v. State, 47 Ga.App.......