Croy v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Croy v. State

61 S.E. 847, 4 Ga. App. 457, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 440

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 18, 1908

Docket1180

StatusPublished

This text of 61 S.E. 847 (Croy 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

Croy v. State, 61 S.E. 847, 4 Ga. App. 457, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 440 (Ga. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

To constitute tlie offense of riot, tliere must be two or more persons acting jointly and in execution of a common intent, in the commission of an unlawful act of violence, or of some other act in a violent and tumultuous manner. Where the evidence shows that the act committed by the accused, whether an unlawful act of violence or otherwise, was not done in execution of a common intent with any other person, and not done, jointly with another, but by him alone, a verdict finding him guilty of riot was contrary to law, and a new trial should have been, granted. Penal Code, § 354; Stanfield v. State, 1 Ga. App. 532 (57 S. E. 953) ; Robinson v. State, 84 Ga. 680 (11 S. E. 544).

Judgment reversed.

George G. Glenn, for plaintiff in error. Samuel P. Maddox, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Hill, C. J.

To constitute tlie offense of riot, tliere must be two or more persons acting jointly and in execution of a common intent, in the commission of an unlawful act of violence, or of some other act in a violent and tumultuous manner. Where the evidence shows that the act committed by the accused, whether an unlawful act of violence or otherwise, was not done in execution of a common intent with any other person, and not done, jointly with another, but by him alone, a verdict finding him guilty of riot was contrary to law, and a new trial should have been, granted. Penal Code, § 354; Stanfield v. State, 1 Ga. App. 532 (57 S. E. 953) ; Robinson v. State, 84 Ga. 680 (11 S. E. 544).

Judgment reversed.

George G. Glenn, for plaintiff in error. Samuel P. Maddox, solicitor-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 S.E. 847, 4 Ga. App. 457, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/croy-v-state-gactapp-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack