Hardy v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hardy v. State

32 S.E.2d 914, 72 Ga. App. 101, 1945 Ga. App. LEXIS 514

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 17, 1945

Docket30754.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 32 S.E.2d 914 (Hardy 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

Hardy v. State, 32 S.E.2d 914, 72 Ga. App. 101, 1945 Ga. App. LEXIS 514 (Ga. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

MacIntyre, J.

1. If the evidence, other than mere possession of the stolen goods, shows a simple larceny has been committed as alleged in the accusation, the correct rule of what inferences may be drawn from such possession, if recent, is, “where on the trial of one charged with larceny it is shown by the evidence that recently after the commission of the offense the stolen goods were found in the possession of the defendant, that fact would authorize the jury to infer that the accused was guilty, unless he explained his possession to their satisfaction.” Morris v. State, 47 Ga. App. 792 (171 S. E. 555) ; Timbs v. State, 71 Ga. App. 141 (30 S. E. 2d, 290).

*102 Decided January 17, 1945. Rehearing Denied February 13, 1945. G. Don Miller, James A. Belflower, for plaintiff in error. Lindley W. Camp, solicitor, John A. Boykin, E. E. Andrews, solicitors-general, Durwood T. Pye, J. R. Parham, contra.

2. It was a jury question in the instant case whether or not the recent possession by the defendant of the stolen property or a part thereof, was satisfactorily' explained.

3. The jux-y were authorized to fiixcl from tlxe whole evidence that the defendant was guilty of a simple larceny as clxax’ged, and the verdict which has the approval of the trial judge will xxot be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Gardner, J., concur.

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

MacIntyre, J.

1. If the evidence, other than mere possession of the stolen goods, shows a simple larceny has been committed as alleged in the accusation, the correct rule of what inferences may be drawn from such possession, if recent, is, “where on the trial of one charged with larceny it is shown by the evidence that recently after the commission of the offense the stolen goods were found in the possession of the defendant, that fact would authorize the jury to infer that the accused was guilty, unless he explained his possession to their satisfaction.” Morris v. State, 47 Ga. App. 792 (171 S. E. 555) ; Timbs v. State, 71 Ga. App. 141 (30 S. E. 2d, 290).

*102 Decided January 17, 1945. Rehearing Denied February 13, 1945. G. Don Miller, James A. Belflower, for plaintiff in error. Lindley W. Camp, solicitor, John A. Boykin, E. E. Andrews, solicitors-general, Durwood T. Pye, J. R. Parham, contra.

2. It was a jury question in the instant case whether or not the recent possession by the defendant of the stolen property or a part thereof, was satisfactorily' explained.

3. The jux-y were authorized to fiixcl from tlxe whole evidence that the defendant was guilty of a simple larceny as clxax’ged, and the verdict which has the approval of the trial judge will xxot be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Gardner, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 S.E.2d 914, 72 Ga. App. 101, 1945 Ga. App. LEXIS 514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardy-v-state-gactapp-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack