Gant v. State

41 S.E. 698, 115 Ga. 205, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 356
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMarch 26, 1902
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 41 S.E. 698 (Gant v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gant v. State, 41 S.E. 698, 115 Ga. 205, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 356 (Ga. 1902).

Opinion

Simmons, C. J.

1. The indictment in this case was for robbery, and charged, in one count, that the crime was committed by force and intimidation ; and the trial judge inadvertently omitted to charge separately upon robbery by intimidation. The evidence was sufficient to authorize a conviction of either offense, but the accused was found guilty with a recommendation that he be punished as for a misdemeanor, and the judge sentenced him in accordance [206]*206with the recommendation. .Held, that, as both the grades of robbery are felonies, the omission to charge upon them separately was in this case harmless to the accused.

Submitted March 17, Decided March 26, 1902. Indictment for robbery. Before Judge Littlejohn. • Sumter superior court. January 29, 1902. Blalock & Cobb, for plaintiff in error. F. A. Hooker, solicitor-general, contra.

2. In the trial of one accused of robbery it is not error to charge that if two persons play and bet at cards and the loser wrongfully, fraudulently, and by force and violence compels the winner to surrender to the loser the money won, this is not robbery; but that if the winner is at the same time and in the same manner compelled to surrender not only his winnings but also some of his individual money, then the loser would be guilty of robbery.

S. A verdict will not be set aside on the ground that a witness who gave material evidence at the trial subsequently admitted, when sworn as a witness in another case, that a portion of this evidence was false, it not appearing that such witness has ever been convicted of the offense of perjury. Civil Code, § 5S66.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring, except Little and Lewis, JJ., absent.

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

Related

Cates v. State
320 A.2d 75 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1974)
Lingo v. State
162 S.E.2d 1 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1968)
United States v. Brown
13 C.M.A. 485 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1963)
People v. Lain
134 P.2d 284 (California Court of Appeal, 1943)
Davidson v. State
139 S.W.2d 409 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1940)
Moyers v. State
197 S.E. 846 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1938)
People v. Rosen
78 P.2d 727 (California Supreme Court, 1938)
State v. Price
219 P. 1049 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1923)
People v. Stein
35 N.Y. Crim. 117 (New York Court of General Session of the Peace, 1916)
Loudenback v. Territory of Oklahoma
1907 OK 124 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 S.E. 698, 115 Ga. 205, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gant-v-state-ga-1902.