Case ID: ga-app_34/html/0601-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Luke, J.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

16771.
    SMITH v. THE STATE.
    Acquittal on an indictment under section 442 of the Penal Code (1910), charging the defendant with having appeared in an intoxicated condition on a public highway, which intoxication was made manifest by boisterousness and indecent condition and acting, and by vulgar, profane, and unbecoming language, was no bar to a conviction on an indictment under the act of 1910 (Ga. L. 1910, pp. 90, 93; Park’s Code (Political), § 828 (i) ; Park’s Penal Code, § 528 (c) ), charging the defendant with ■ having operated an automobile on the public highway while in an intoxicated condition.
    Decided November 11, 1925.
    Indictment for operating automobile while intoxicated; from Clarke superior court—Judge Eortson. August 5, 1925.
    Application for certiorari was made to the Supreme Court.
    Each indictment charged that the offense was committed on a public highway leading from Winterville, Ga., to Athens, Ga., on February 23, 1924, and the plea alleged that the indictments were founded upon the same facts and transaction.
    
      Carlisle Cobb, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Henry H. West, solicitor-general, contra.
   Luke, J.

The defendant was indicted for operating an automobile on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He had been acquitted upon an indictment which charged him with appearing in an intoxicated condition on the public highways, which intoxication was made manifest by boisterousness and by indecent condition and- acting, and by vulgar, profane, and unbecoming language, and by loud and violent discourse. The defendant filed a plea of former jeopardy, which, on demurrer, was stricken; the trial proceeded, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty.

The court properly struck the plea of former jeopardy. The evidence amply authorized the conviction, and for no reason pointed out was it error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworfh, J., concur.