Handy v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Handy v. State

161 S.E. 368, 44 Ga. App. 310, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 697

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 11, 1931

Docket21862

StatusPublished

This text of 161 S.E. 368 (Handy 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

Handy v. State, 161 S.E. 368, 44 Ga. App. 310, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 697 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. The defendants were convicted of robbery and they except to the overruling of their motion for a new trial. The evidence shows that after the defendants were captured, the victim of the robbery went to the police barracks and promptly and positively identified them as they stood in a line of twelve; that one of the defendants, when captured, claimed that he did not know the other defendant, and the undisputed evidence shows that they lived together in the same house and played cards together; that the place where they were playing cards was very close to the store which was robbed; that at the time of their capture one of the defendants had no opportunity to run, but the other defendant ran, was chased by an officer, and finally was captured under a house. The testimony of the storekeeper that she was robbed and that these two defendants robbed her was accepted by the jury as true, and is sufficient to authorize the verdict.

2. It was permissible to prove what the victim of the robbery stated, immediately thereafter in description of the robbers, but not-by the introduction in evidence of a newspaper containing an alleged account of the robbery. The newspaper was properly excluded from evidence. .

3. The motion for a new trial shows no cause for a reversal of the judgment overruling it.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. The defendants were convicted of robbery and they except to the overruling of their motion for a new trial. The evidence shows that after the defendants were captured, the victim of the robbery went to the police barracks and promptly and positively identified them as they stood in a line of twelve; that one of the defendants, when captured, claimed that he did not know the other defendant, and the undisputed evidence shows that they lived together in the same house and played cards together; that the place where they were playing cards was very close to the store which was robbed; that at the time of their capture one of the defendants had no opportunity to run, but the other defendant ran, was chased by an officer, and finally was captured under a house. The testimony of the storekeeper that she was robbed and that these two defendants robbed her was accepted by the jury as true, and is sufficient to authorize the verdict.

2. It was permissible to prove what the victim of the robbery stated, immediately thereafter in description of the robbers, but not-by the introduction in evidence of a newspaper containing an alleged account of the robbery. The newspaper was properly excluded from evidence. .

3. The motion for a new trial shows no cause for a reversal of the judgment overruling it.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 S.E. 368, 44 Ga. App. 310, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/handy-v-state-gactapp-1931.