Belcher v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Belcher v. State

91 S.E. 879, 19 Ga. App. 439, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 140

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 13, 1917

Docket7821

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 91 S.E. 879 (Belcher v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Belcher v. State, 91 S.E. 879, 19 Ga. App. 439, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 140 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. Offenses differing from each other may be included in the-same indictment, provided they are of the same nature and differ only in degree. Hoskins v. State, 11 Ga. 92; Gilbert v. State, 65 Ga. 449; Tooke v. State, 4 Ga. App. 495 (61 S. E. 917).

2. The offense of willfully and maliciously attempting to destroy or injure a dwelling-house, or store-house, etc., with dynamite or other explosive substance (Penal Code of 1910, § 787), and the offense of having in “possession in the day or nighttime any engine, machine, jimmy, tool, false key, pick-lock, bit, nippers, nitroglycerine, dynamite cap, dynamite, or other explosive, fuse, steel wedges, drills, tap-pins, or other implements or things adapted, designed, or commonly used for the commission of burglary, larceny, safe-cracking, or other crime, with intent to use or employ or allow the same to be used or employed in the commission of a crime, or knowing that the same are intended to be so used”.(Acts 1910, p. 136; Park’s Penal Code, § 183 (a)) are-not such kindred crimes that the two offenses may be joined in the same indictment.

3. Where in the same indictment the grand jury, in one count, charged the defendant with a violation of § 787 of the Penal Code, supra, and in another count charged him with the crime defined in the act of 1910, supra, there was a misjoinder of counts; and the court erred in failing to sustain a proper demurrer thereto.

Judgment reversed.

Wade, G. J„ and George, J., eoneúr.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Luke, J.

1. Offenses differing from each other may be included in the-same indictment, provided they are of the same nature and differ only in degree. Hoskins v. State, 11 Ga. 92; Gilbert v. State, 65 Ga. 449; Tooke v. State, 4 Ga. App. 495 (61 S. E. 917).

2. The offense of willfully and maliciously attempting to destroy or injure a dwelling-house, or store-house, etc., with dynamite or other explosive substance (Penal Code of 1910, § 787), and the offense of having in “possession in the day or nighttime any engine, machine, jimmy, tool, false key, pick-lock, bit, nippers, nitroglycerine, dynamite cap, dynamite, or other explosive, fuse, steel wedges, drills, tap-pins, or other implements or things adapted, designed, or commonly used for the commission of burglary, larceny, safe-cracking, or other crime, with intent to use or employ or allow the same to be used or employed in the commission of a crime, or knowing that the same are intended to be so used”.(Acts 1910, p. 136; Park’s Penal Code, § 183 (a)) are-not such kindred crimes that the two offenses may be joined in the same indictment.

3. Where in the same indictment the grand jury, in one count, charged the defendant with a violation of § 787 of the Penal Code, supra, and in another count charged him with the crime defined in the act of 1910, supra, there was a misjoinder of counts; and the court erred in failing to sustain a proper demurrer thereto.

Judgment reversed.

Wade, G. J„ and George, J., eoneúr.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 S.E. 879, 19 Ga. App. 439, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belcher-v-state-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack