Hall v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hall v. State

158 S.E. 357, 43 Ga. App. 224, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 273

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 14, 1931

Docket21315

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 158 S.E. 357 (Hall 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

Hall v. State, 158 S.E. 357, 43 Ga. App. 224, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 273 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The accused and two of his brothers were tried on an indictment containing two counts. The first count charged robbery by force and violence. The second count charged robbery by intimidation. The accused was tried separately from his brothers. After the evidence had been adduced the court instructed the jury, in effect, that the defendant could not be convicted on the first count. This was equivalent to saying that the State had abandoned that count. The jury returned a general verdict of guilty. Under the facts just stated, the verdict, properly construed, meant guilty on the second count, which charged robbery by intimidation. While the evidence shows that the money was actually taken from the person of the victim by one of the brothers of the defendant, [225]*225there was other evidence which together with the legal inferences therefrom, authorized the jury to find that the accused was present and aiding and abetting his brothers in the commission of the crime, and that the offense was robbery by intimidation. The finding of the jury having been approved by the trial judge, and the motion for a new trial containing the usual general grounds only, this court is without authority to interfere.

■Judgment affirmed.

Lulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The accused and two of his brothers were tried on an indictment containing two counts. The first count charged robbery by force and violence. The second count charged robbery by intimidation. The accused was tried separately from his brothers. After the evidence had been adduced the court instructed the jury, in effect, that the defendant could not be convicted on the first count. This was equivalent to saying that the State had abandoned that count. The jury returned a general verdict of guilty. Under the facts just stated, the verdict, properly construed, meant guilty on the second count, which charged robbery by intimidation. While the evidence shows that the money was actually taken from the person of the victim by one of the brothers of the defendant, [225]*225there was other evidence which together with the legal inferences therefrom, authorized the jury to find that the accused was present and aiding and abetting his brothers in the commission of the crime, and that the offense was robbery by intimidation. The finding of the jury having been approved by the trial judge, and the motion for a new trial containing the usual general grounds only, this court is without authority to interfere.

■Judgment affirmed.

Lulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 S.E. 357, 43 Ga. App. 224, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-state-gactapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack