Gober v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Gober v. State

144 S.E. 8, 38 Ga. App. 348, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 218

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 10, 1928

Docket18971

StatusPublished

This text of 144 S.E. 8 (Gober 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

Gober v. State, 144 S.E. 8, 38 Ga. App. 348, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 218 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

Gober was convicted of simple larceny, upon proof of his possession of a stolen battery. When it was found in his possession-he explained his possession by telling where and from whom he bought it-. He introduced a witness who swore positively as to the purchase of the battery by the defendant; and the testimony of this witness was in accord and harmony with the explanation given by the defendant in his statement at the time it was found in his possession and upon the trial. This testimony was unimpeached, and, unless arbitrarily disregarded, fully explained the possession of the battery by the defendant. The defendant may be guilty, but, under the rules of law, the testimony of a witness who is unimpeached and uncontradicted, and which perfectly and reasonably explains his possession of the stolen property, can not be disregarded by the jury. Under all the facts of the case, the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

Gober was convicted of simple larceny, upon proof of his possession of a stolen battery. When it was found in his possession-he explained his possession by telling where and from whom he bought it-. He introduced a witness who swore positively as to the purchase of the battery by the defendant; and the testimony of this witness was in accord and harmony with the explanation given by the defendant in his statement at the time it was found in his possession and upon the trial. This testimony was unimpeached, and, unless arbitrarily disregarded, fully explained the possession of the battery by the defendant. The defendant may be guilty, but, under the rules of law, the testimony of a witness who is unimpeached and uncontradicted, and which perfectly and reasonably explains his possession of the stolen property, can not be disregarded by the jury. Under all the facts of the case, the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 S.E. 8, 38 Ga. App. 348, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gober-v-state-gactapp-1928.