Court Opinion

ID: 9856163
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:39:25.925831+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:26:11.540812
License: Public Domain

Nichols, Presiding Judge,
dissenting. While I concur in the ruling in the first division of the majority opinion I must dissent from the second division and from the judgment of affirmance.
“Between the preparation for the attempt and the attempt itself there is a wide difference. The preparation consists in devising or arranging the means or measures necessary for the commission of the offense; the attempt is the direct movement toward the commission after the preparations are made.” People v. Murray, 14 Cal. 159. The above was quoted approvingly in Groves v. State, 116 Ga. 516 (42 SE 755, 59 LRA 598).
There w>as evidence adduced that the still was owned by the defendant, that mash was located at the still ready to “run,” that other items were needed to complete the operation and that the defendant and his admitted associate were carrying such needed items to the still and they were intercepted and arrested *367as they approached the still. The associate, who had pleaded guilty to the same charge, testified that they were going to the still to make liquor when they were arrested. Such evidence was insufficient to authorize a conviction of an attempt to manufacture distilled liquor and showed, at most, a mere preparation to commit the crime. The cases of Coffee v. State, 39 Ga. App. 664 (148 SE 303); Hartline v. State, 34 Ga. App. 224 (129 SE 123); and Foster v. State, 37 Ga. App. 498 (140 SE 775) state the correct principle of law and should not be overruled.
I am authorized to say that Chief Judge Felton and Presiding Judge Carlisle concur in this dissent.