Ham v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ham v. State

14 S.E.2d 607, 65 Ga. App. 27, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 239

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 2, 1941

Docket28891.

StatusPublished

This text of 14 S.E.2d 607 (Ham 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

Ham v. State, 14 S.E.2d 607, 65 Ga. App. 27, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 239 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The accused was convicted of burglary, and his motion for new trial was overruled. The evidence,' direct and circumstantial, authorized the jury to find, to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis, that the defendant broke and entered the premises in question, with the intent to commit a larceny. Evidence showing that the defendant had been previously convicted of other burglaries was properly admitted to show his intent in breaking and entering the premises in this case, he having admitted in his statement to the jury that he was found there by the officers, but disclaiming any intention to burglarize the place. Under the facts of the case the refusal to declare a mistrial was not error. The excerpt from the charge complained of was not erroneous for any reason assigned. The denial of a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The accused was convicted of burglary, and his motion for new trial was overruled. The evidence,' direct and circumstantial, authorized the jury to find, to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis, that the defendant broke and entered the premises in question, with the intent to commit a larceny. Evidence showing that the defendant had been previously convicted of other burglaries was properly admitted to show his intent in breaking and entering the premises in this case, he having admitted in his statement to the jury that he was found there by the officers, but disclaiming any intention to burglarize the place. Under the facts of the case the refusal to declare a mistrial was not error. The excerpt from the charge complained of was not erroneous for any reason assigned. The denial of a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 S.E.2d 607, 65 Ga. App. 27, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ham-v-state-gactapp-1941.