Courson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Courson v. State

94 S.E. 53, 21 Ga. App. 153, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 487

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 31, 1917

Docket9142

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 94 S.E. 53 (Courson 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

Courson v. State, 94 S.E. 53, 21 Ga. App. 153, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 487 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

T. “It is not essential that the testimony in corroboration of an accomplice shall of itself be sufficient to warrant a verdict of guilty, or that the testimony of the, accomplice shall be corroborated ' in every material particular; but it is necessary, in addition to the corroboration of the accomplice, that the testimony shall be of itself sufficient to raise an inference that the defendant is guilty. The corroborative evidence in the present ease is wholly insufficient for that purpose, and the conviction, resting solely upon the testimony of a confessed accomplice, should have been set aside.” Bishop v. State, 9 Ga. App. 205 (70 S. E. 976).

2. “To authorize a conviction on the testimony of an accomplice, the same must be corroborated by evidence connecting the accused with the perpetration of the offense. Corroborating evidence which, without going to this extent, merely casts a grave suspicion upon the accused is not sufficient.” Taylor v. State, 110 Ga. 151 (35 S. E. 161).

3. As the case is to be remanded because of these rulings, it is unnecessary to pass upon the errors alleged in the amendment to the motion, for a new trial, for if errors were committed as therein claimed, they will probably not occur on another trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur. Padgett & Watson, for plaintiff in error. M. D. Diclcerson, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Bloodworth, J.

T. “It is not essential that the testimony in corroboration of an accomplice shall of itself be sufficient to warrant a verdict of guilty, or that the testimony of the, accomplice shall be corroborated ' in every material particular; but it is necessary, in addition to the corroboration of the accomplice, that the testimony shall be of itself sufficient to raise an inference that the defendant is guilty. The corroborative evidence in the present ease is wholly insufficient for that purpose, and the conviction, resting solely upon the testimony of a confessed accomplice, should have been set aside.” Bishop v. State, 9 Ga. App. 205 (70 S. E. 976).

2. “To authorize a conviction on the testimony of an accomplice, the same must be corroborated by evidence connecting the accused with the perpetration of the offense. Corroborating evidence which, without going to this extent, merely casts a grave suspicion upon the accused is not sufficient.” Taylor v. State, 110 Ga. 151 (35 S. E. 161).

3. As the case is to be remanded because of these rulings, it is unnecessary to pass upon the errors alleged in the amendment to the motion, for a new trial, for if errors were committed as therein claimed, they will probably not occur on another trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur. Padgett & Watson, for plaintiff in error. M. D. Diclcerson, solicitor-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 S.E. 53, 21 Ga. App. 153, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/courson-v-state-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack