Veasey v. State, 41622
| Decision Date | 16 November 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 41622,41622,2 |
| Citation | 112 Ga.App. 651,145 S.E.2d 745 |
| Parties | Freddie VEASEY, Sr. v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Casey Thigpen, Sandersville, for appellant.
Thomas A. Hutcheson, Sol., Sandersville, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. Goldberg v. State, 22 Ga.App. 122(1), 95 S.E. 541.
2. The accusation alleged that the offense was committed on June 26, 1965. The case was tried on July 29, 1965. There was testimony that the defendant committed the offense on June 26th, on a Saturday. This court will take judicial cognizance that June 26, 1965 was on a Saturday, and this same date in 1964 was on a Friday; and in 1963 on a Wednesday; and in 1962 on a Tuesday. There is evidence, therefore, that all parties understood that the proof went to establish the commission of the offense on the day charged in the accusation, and a new trial will not be granted on the ground that the evidence left uncertain the time when the offense was committed. Goldberg v. State, 22 Ga.App. 122, 95 S.E. 541, supra; Plair v. State, 23 Ga.App. 574(1), 99 S.E. 61. In Rivers v. State, 55 Ga.App. 290, 189 S.E. 923, relied upon by the appellant, the evidence disclosed no date whatsoever. That case, therefore, is not controlling here.
3. 'The defense of entrapment is not successful when the conduct of investigating officers toward the accused would not likely have enticed into crime an unwary innocent who would otherwise have struggled with himself and resisted ordinary temptations, but would be likely to induce only those ready and willing to commit a crime.' Merritt v. State, 110 Ga.App. 150, 137 S.E.2d 917. It follows, therefore, that upon application of the above quoted principle to the facts of the present case (which for the purposes of this decision are almost identical with the facts in Merritt v. State, 110 Ga.App. 150, 137 S.E.2d 917, supra), it must be held that the defense of entrapment was not proven.
4. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict finding the defendant guilty of selling nontax-paid whiskey.
Judgment affirmed.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Decker v. State
...any date within the period of the statute of limitations . . ..' Duncan v. State, 71 Ga.App. 841, 843, 32 S.E.2d 435, 436. See Veasey v. State, 112 Ga.App. 651(1, 2), 145 S.E.2d 745. It can be assumed in this case, looking to all the evidence concerning the date of the offense, that the wit......
-
Gaines v. State, 53769
...while circumstantial, is sufficient proof of the date of the offense to survive a motion for a directed verdict. Veasey v. State, 112 Ga.App. 651(1), 145 S.E.2d 745 (1965). Judgment QUILLIAN, P. J., and SHULMAN, J., concur. ...
- Turner v. Atlanta Realty Co.
-
Jackson v. State, 61904
...of some indication that another year was intended, it is understood that the witnesses were referring to 1980. See Veasey v. State, 112 Ga.App. 651(1), 145 S.E.2d 745 (1965). Also, several of the witnesses referred to the day of the week as well as the day of the month, and the two match up......