THE STATE v. MCNEILL., 234 Ga. 696, 217 S.E.2.d 281

Docket number: 29906
ARGUED

NICHOLS, Chief Justice. - ARGUED
Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/the-state-v-mcneill-20408957
Id. vLex: VLEX-20408957

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Summary:

Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia -- 134 Ga. App. 45 (213 SE2d 119)., Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur, except Gunter, J., who dissents.

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

Supreme Court of Georgia - CHANDLE v. THE STATE., 230 Ga. 574, 198 S.E.2.d 289

See other documents that cite the same legislation

RSS What's this?

Cited by:

Georgia Court Of Appeals - Morgan v. State of Georgia., 172 Ga. App. 375, 323 S.E.2d 620 (1984)

Supreme Court of Georgia - POWELL v. THE STATE., 237 Ga. 490, 228 S.E.2.d 875 (1976)

Georgia Court Of Appeals - Lentile v. The State., 136 Ga. App. 611, 222 S.E.2d 86 (1975)

Georgia Court Of Appeals - Blackman v. The State., 158 Ga. App. 463, 280 S.E.2d 872 (1981)

Georgia Court Of Appeals - Johnson v. The State., 140 Ga. App. 246, 230 S.E.2d 499 (1976)

Georgia Court Of Appeals - Haygood v. The State., 142 Ga. App. 627, 236 S.E.2d 696 (1977)

Georgia Court Of Appeals - Howard v. The State., 166 Ga. App. 224, 303 S.E.2d 763 (1983)

Georgia Court Of Appeals - Mcneill v. The State., 135 Ga. App. 876, 219 S.E.2d 613 (1974)

Supreme Court of Georgia - DIAZ v. THE STATE., 239 Ga. 365, 236 S.E.2.d 669 (1977)

Georgia Court Of Appeals - Webb v. The State., 136 Ga. App. 90, 220 S.E.2d 27 (1975)

See all citations to this document

Text:

Richard E. Allen, District Attorney, Sam B. Sibley, Assistant District Attorney, for appellant.Richard E. Allen, District Attorney, Sam B. Sibley, Assistant District Attorney, for appellant.

Certiorari was granted to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case ( McNeill v. State, 134 Ga. App. 45 (213 SE2d 119)). The defendant was tried and convicted on a three-count indictment charging violations of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, and the Court of Appeals reversed because the trial court failed to specifically charge that the state had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped into violating the law.

The Court of Appeals in its opinion states: "The trial judge gave a full and complete instruction to the jury on the question of entrapment. He followed this portion of the charge with a general charge on the basic principles of reasonable doubt and as to the burden of proof being upon the state in a criminal prosecution."

In Brown v. Matthews, 230 Ga. 574 (3) (198 SE2d 289). Accordingly, it was not error for the trial court to fail to specifically instruct the jury that the state had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had not been entrapped as defined in Code Ann. 26-905, supra.

1975