Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Bloodworth v. State

Bloodworth v. State

70 S.E. 892, 9 Ga. App. 161, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 442
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided April 3, 1911·No. 3141·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Powell, J.

1. “Tile opening of a door, though it may not be latched or fastened by bolts or locks, . . and effecting an entrance thereby, is a breaking, within the meaning of the law” relating to burglary. Grimes v. State, 77 Ga. 762 (4 Am. St. R. 112).

2. The testimony unequivocally disclosed that the prosecutor’s house had been broken (using the word “broken” in the sense indicated in the preceding paragraph) ; and, the only issue unaer the evidence being as to whether the defendant was the person who was guilty of the burglary, the court did not err in failing to charge on the subject of larceny from the house. Judgment affirmed.

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

Bloodworth v. State, 70 S.E. 892, 9 Ga. App. 161, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 442 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

70 S.E. 892 (Bloodworth v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Kedric Evans
415 F.2d 340 (Fifth Circuit, 1969)
Mears v. State
106 S.E.2d 854 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1958)
Sheppard v. State
98 S.E.2d 169 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1957)
Gentry v. State
63 S.E.2d 611 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1951)
Moye v. State
29 S.E.2d 791 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1944)
Moseley v. State
29 S.E.2d 86 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1944)
Lewis v. State
166 S.E. 446 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)