Coe v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Coe v. State

138 S.E. 919, 37 Ga. App. 82, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 473

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 14, 1927

Docket18113

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 138 S.E. 919 (Coe 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

Coe v. State, 138 S.E. 919, 37 Ga. App. 82, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 473 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworti-i, J.

The defendant was convicted of burglary. The verdict was based upon the fact that certain articles taken from the burglarized building were found in the recent possession of the accused. The motion for a new trial alleges that the-two articles identified as having been taken from the burglarized building “were not found in the possession of the defendant until after three months from the time of said burglary, and that the same was not such recent possession as was required by the law.” The judge submitted this question to the jury, and they found against this contention. In Shaneyfelt v. State, 24 Ga. App. 555 (2) (101 S. E. 592), this court held: “Whether the inference of guilt which may arise from recent possession of stolen goods should be drawn where several weeks elapse between the theft and the finding of the [83]*83, goods in the defendant’s possession is a question for the jury.” This settles this question adversely to the contention of the plaintiff in error. Under this ruling and the facts of the case, the jury were authorized to find the accused guilty.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworti-i, J.

The defendant was convicted of burglary. The verdict was based upon the fact that certain articles taken from the burglarized building were found in the recent possession of the accused. The motion for a new trial alleges that the-two articles identified as having been taken from the burglarized building “were not found in the possession of the defendant until after three months from the time of said burglary, and that the same was not such recent possession as was required by the law.” The judge submitted this question to the jury, and they found against this contention. In Shaneyfelt v. State, 24 Ga. App. 555 (2) (101 S. E. 592), this court held: “Whether the inference of guilt which may arise from recent possession of stolen goods should be drawn where several weeks elapse between the theft and the finding of the [83]*83, goods in the defendant’s possession is a question for the jury.” This settles this question adversely to the contention of the plaintiff in error. Under this ruling and the facts of the case, the jury were authorized to find the accused guilty.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 S.E. 919, 37 Ga. App. 82, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coe-v-state-gactapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack