Flint v. State, 114 S.E. 585 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922). · Go Syfert
Flint v. State, 114 S.E. 585 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
30 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Treatment trajectory · 1924 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1924 1975 2026
Cited for
Other citing cases3 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
FLINT
v.
State
13752.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Nov 16, 1922.
Published opinion
114 S.E. 585
1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 182
Hugh E. Oombs, for plaintiff in error., M. L. Felts, solicitor-general, contra.
Bloodworth.
Cited by 17 opinions  |  Published
Bloodworth, J.

1. Plaintiff in error was convicted of manufacturing liquor. The evidence shows that he and another were at a distillery that was in operation, and both fled when they saw the officers approaching. Plaintiff in error was arrested the next day at his home about a half-mile from the distillery. In his statement to the jury he attempted to explain his presence at the distillery. Whether this explanation was reasonable and satisfactory was a question for the jury; and the jury having rejected it as unsatisfactory to them, and their finding having been approved by the trial judge, this court has no authority to interfere. See, in this connection, Yonce v. State, 29 Ga. App. 173 (114 S. E. 584).

2. Where the judge, in his original instructions to the jury, charged them fully on circumstantial evidence, and the jury, after considering the case, asked to be recharged “ upon some points of[*223] law,” it is not cause for a new trial that the judge in recharging, did not repeat instructions on circumstantial evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Lulce, J., concur.