Thomas v. State
Thomas v. the State
Opinion of the Court
MacIntyre, J.
There are no accessories in misdemeanors. In such cases, “Whether the indictment is joint or several, any particular defendant accused therein of having committed the misdemeanor may be convicted by proof either that he directly and personally enacted the criminal transaction, or that he procured, counseled, commanded, aided, or abetted the criminal transaction of another, who was the direct and immediate actor.”
Loeb v. State, 6
23 (1 a), 30 ( 64 S. E. 338 ).
The jury were authorized to find that the defendant stationed himself on the front porch of his house and directed customers to the rear of the same where others, who had no licenses, were actually controlling, possessing, and selling whisky that did not bear tax stamps.
Loeb v. State, supra;
Holt v. State, 7
Ga.
App. 77 ( 66 S. E. 279 );
Smith v. State, 40
622 ( 150 S. E. 923 ). The motion for new trial contains only the general grounds. The evidence for the State, if credible, was sufficient to *750 support the verdict. The jury being the judges of the weight of the evidence, this court can not disturb the judgment refusing a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Broyles, C. J., and Gardner, J., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 9 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.