Young v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided December 21, 1912

Court of Appeals of Georgia · decided 1912-12-21

<p>Accusation of sale of liquor; from city court of Ocilla—Judge Oxford. November 6, 1912.</p>

Relies on Williams v. State · Duren v. City of Thomasville · Hammock v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1912-12-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently February 1948

14 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Hill, C. J.

¶11. It is only in those cases where the State relies entirely upon circumstantial evidence that it is incumbent upon the trial judge, without request, to instruct the jury as to the probative value of circumstantial evidence. Holt v. State, 7 Ga. App. 77 (66 S. E. 279); Benton v. State, 9 Ga. App. 422 (71 S. E. 498). The verdict in this case does not depend entirely upon such evidence.

¶22. The evidence obtained by an, illegal search of the house of the accused - is admissible against him. This has been repeatedly held by this court and the Supreme Court. Cohen v. State, 7 Ga. App. 5 (65 S. E. 1096); Hammock v. State, 1 Ga. App. 126 (58 S. E. 66); Williams v. State, 100 Ga. 511 (28 S. E. 624, 39 L. R. A. 269); Duren v. Thomasville, 125 Ga. 1 (53 S. E. 84).

¶33. The assignments of error of law are wholly without merit, and the verdict is fully supported by the evidence. ' Judgment affirmed.