Blankenship v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Blankenship v. State

181 S.E.2d 544, 123 Ga. App. 496, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 1278

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 19, 1971

Docket46044

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 181 S.E.2d 544 (Blankenship 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

Blankenship v. State, 181 S.E.2d 544, 123 Ga. App. 496, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 1278 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Quhlian, Judge.

The defendant was indicted and convicted of burglary. He filed a motion for new trial which was overruled and the case is here on appeal. Held:

The trial judge instructed the jury: "Ladies and gentlemen, our law provides a person commits burglary when, without authority and with intent to commit a felony or theft therein he enters or remains within the dwelling house of another.” This charge is taken from the Criminal Code of Georgia §26-1601 (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1249, 1287; Code Ann. §26-1601), which did not become effective until July 1, 1969. The alleged burglary took place on November 1, 1967. The 1968 Act repealed Code § 26-2401 and removed the element of breaking from the crime. Thus, the trial judge should have charged the elements of bur[497]*497glary as defined by Code § 26-2401 which was in effect at the time the alleged burglary was committed. The Criminal Code of Georgia § 26-103 (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1249, 1260; Code Ann. § 26-103); Ponder v. State, 121 Ga. App. 788, 789 (175 SE2d 55).

Submitted March 3, 1971 Decided March 19, 1971. Hardaway Young, III, for appellant.

Judgment reversed.

Jordan, P. J., and Evans, J., concur.

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

Quhlian, Judge.

The defendant was indicted and convicted of burglary. He filed a motion for new trial which was overruled and the case is here on appeal. Held:

The trial judge instructed the jury: "Ladies and gentlemen, our law provides a person commits burglary when, without authority and with intent to commit a felony or theft therein he enters or remains within the dwelling house of another.” This charge is taken from the Criminal Code of Georgia §26-1601 (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1249, 1287; Code Ann. §26-1601), which did not become effective until July 1, 1969. The alleged burglary took place on November 1, 1967. The 1968 Act repealed Code § 26-2401 and removed the element of breaking from the crime. Thus, the trial judge should have charged the elements of bur[497]*497glary as defined by Code § 26-2401 which was in effect at the time the alleged burglary was committed. The Criminal Code of Georgia § 26-103 (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1249, 1260; Code Ann. § 26-103); Ponder v. State, 121 Ga. App. 788, 789 (175 SE2d 55).

Submitted March 3, 1971 Decided March 19, 1971. Hardaway Young, III, for appellant.

Judgment reversed.

Jordan, P. J., and Evans, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 S.E.2d 544, 123 Ga. App. 496, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 1278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blankenship-v-state-gactapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack