Brown v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Brown v. State

179 S.E. 594, 51 Ga. App. 52, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 549

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 3, 1935

Docket24653

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 179 S.E. 594 (Brown 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

Brown v. State, 179 S.E. 594, 51 Ga. App. 52, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 549 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The accused was convicted of carrying away, with intent to steal, one barrel of pine gum of the value of five dollars. The accused, in his statement to the jury, admitted carrying away and selling the gum, but contended that under liis contract with the prosecutor he had the right to take and sell it, or at least he honestly so believed; and his contention was supported by some of the evidence adduced, and [53]*53by the circumstances of the transaction, the taking and selling having been done openly and in the daytime. Under all the facts of the ease the court erred in omitting to instruct the jury, without request, upon the defense set up by the accused, and in failing to submit to them in that connection the question whether the defendant, in carrying away the gum, had the intent to steal it. See Smith v. State, 109 Ga. 479 (3) (35 S. E. 59); Glaze v. State, 2 Ga. App. 704 (2, 3) (58 S. E. 1126).

Decided April 3, 1935. W. 0. Hodges, for plaintiff in error. W. F. Mills, solicitor, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Maelntyre and Guerry, JJ., eoneur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The accused was convicted of carrying away, with intent to steal, one barrel of pine gum of the value of five dollars. The accused, in his statement to the jury, admitted carrying away and selling the gum, but contended that under liis contract with the prosecutor he had the right to take and sell it, or at least he honestly so believed; and his contention was supported by some of the evidence adduced, and [53]*53by the circumstances of the transaction, the taking and selling having been done openly and in the daytime. Under all the facts of the ease the court erred in omitting to instruct the jury, without request, upon the defense set up by the accused, and in failing to submit to them in that connection the question whether the defendant, in carrying away the gum, had the intent to steal it. See Smith v. State, 109 Ga. 479 (3) (35 S. E. 59); Glaze v. State, 2 Ga. App. 704 (2, 3) (58 S. E. 1126).

Decided April 3, 1935. W. 0. Hodges, for plaintiff in error. W. F. Mills, solicitor, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Maelntyre and Guerry, JJ., eoneur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.E. 594, 51 Ga. App. 52, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-state-gactapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack