Futch v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Futch v. State

70 S.E.2d 95, 85 Ga. App. 701, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 812

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 19, 1952

Docket33970

StatusPublished

This text of 70 S.E.2d 95 (Futch 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

Futch v. State, 70 S.E.2d 95, 85 Ga. App. 701, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 812 (Ga. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Townsend, J.

“An incriminating statement is one freely and voluntarily made by the accused, which only tends to establish his guilt of the offense charged, or one from which, together with other proven facts and circumstances, guilt may be inferred by the jury. Fletcher v. State, 90 Ga. 468 (17 S. E. 100); Riley v. State, supra [1 Ga. App. 651, 57 S. E. 1031].” Pressley v. State, 201 Ga. 267, 270 (39 S. E. 2d, 478). The incriminating statement of one of the defendants here, betraying knowledge that a cow had been killed, together with evidence as to the defendants’ presence at the time of the killing, their flight, their possession of a firearm, their conduct subsequent to the killing of the cow, showing an intent to steal the same, contradictory .statements in explanation thereof, and other circumstances, were sufficient to authorize the verdict of guilty. See Tinker v. State, 125 Ga. 743 (54 S. E. 662); Cross v. State, 64 Ga. 443.

Judgment affirmed,.

Gardner, P.J., and Carlisle, J., concur.

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

Townsend, J.

“An incriminating statement is one freely and voluntarily made by the accused, which only tends to establish his guilt of the offense charged, or one from which, together with other proven facts and circumstances, guilt may be inferred by the jury. Fletcher v. State, 90 Ga. 468 (17 S. E. 100); Riley v. State, supra [1 Ga. App. 651, 57 S. E. 1031].” Pressley v. State, 201 Ga. 267, 270 (39 S. E. 2d, 478). The incriminating statement of one of the defendants here, betraying knowledge that a cow had been killed, together with evidence as to the defendants’ presence at the time of the killing, their flight, their possession of a firearm, their conduct subsequent to the killing of the cow, showing an intent to steal the same, contradictory .statements in explanation thereof, and other circumstances, were sufficient to authorize the verdict of guilty. See Tinker v. State, 125 Ga. 743 (54 S. E. 662); Cross v. State, 64 Ga. 443.

Judgment affirmed,.

Gardner, P.J., and Carlisle, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 S.E.2d 95, 85 Ga. App. 701, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/futch-v-state-gactapp-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack