Denton v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Shulman, Judge.
Defendants were convicted of possessing obscene devices with intent to sell, in violation of Code Ann. § 26-2101 (c). We affirm.
1. Appellant asserts error in the trial court’s instruction that "every person is assumed to intend the natural and necessary consequences of his act” on the ground that such charge is impermissibly burden shifting under the rationale of Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U. S. 510 (99 SC 2450, 61 LE2d 39).
Although the better practice would be for the trial court to *428expressly advise the jury that the presumption of intent is rebuttable, the court’s charge in…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Sandstrom v. MontanaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Skrine v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1979
- Sewell v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1977
- Whisenhunt v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1979
- Wadley Southern Railway Co. v. FagleeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1931
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Wallace v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1981
- McCann v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1983
- Cassells v. Bradlee Management Services, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1982
- George v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1985
- Imperial Body Works, Inc. v. National Claims Service, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1981
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.