Collier v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Collier v. State

33 S.E.2d 45, 72 Ga. App. 96, 1945 Ga. App. LEXIS 511

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 9, 1945

Docket30765.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 33 S.E.2d 45 (Collier 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

Collier v. State, 33 S.E.2d 45, 72 Ga. App. 96, 1945 Ga. App. LEXIS 511 (Ga. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

MacIntyre, J.

1. The defendant complains that there was no proof that J. G-. (alias Jack) Collier, the person named in the former accusation that was introduced in evidence, was the same Jack Collier named in the present accusation. The identity of the names in the instant case was prima facie evidence of the identity of the person, and neither in his pleading, evidence, nor statement did the defendant deny that he was the person named in the former accusation. This assignment is not meritorious. Foster v. State, 70 Ga. App. 305 (28 S. E. 2d, 81); Timbs v. State, 71 Ga. App. 141 (30 S. E. 2d, 290).

2. Other than the assignment of error dealt with above, the same questions are raised in the assignments of error in the petition for certiorari in this case as were raised in the case of Brown v. State, 72 Ga. App. 61 (33 S. E. 2d, 44). Both defendants were tried at the same time under separate accusations. The assignments of error, other than the one dealt with in the preceding division of this opinion, are controlled by the ruling of this court in Brown v. State, supra.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Gardner, J., concur. *97 Barrett & Hayes, for plaintiff in error. Lindley W. Camp, solicitor, John A. Boykin, E. E. Andrews, solicitors-general, Burwood T. Pye, contra.

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

MacIntyre, J.

1. The defendant complains that there was no proof that J. G-. (alias Jack) Collier, the person named in the former accusation that was introduced in evidence, was the same Jack Collier named in the present accusation. The identity of the names in the instant case was prima facie evidence of the identity of the person, and neither in his pleading, evidence, nor statement did the defendant deny that he was the person named in the former accusation. This assignment is not meritorious. Foster v. State, 70 Ga. App. 305 (28 S. E. 2d, 81); Timbs v. State, 71 Ga. App. 141 (30 S. E. 2d, 290).

2. Other than the assignment of error dealt with above, the same questions are raised in the assignments of error in the petition for certiorari in this case as were raised in the case of Brown v. State, 72 Ga. App. 61 (33 S. E. 2d, 44). Both defendants were tried at the same time under separate accusations. The assignments of error, other than the one dealt with in the preceding division of this opinion, are controlled by the ruling of this court in Brown v. State, supra.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Gardner, J., concur. *97 Barrett & Hayes, for plaintiff in error. Lindley W. Camp, solicitor, John A. Boykin, E. E. Andrews, solicitors-general, Burwood T. Pye, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 S.E.2d 45, 72 Ga. App. 96, 1945 Ga. App. LEXIS 511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collier-v-state-gactapp-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack