Hargett v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hargett v. State

189 S.E. 675, 55 Ga. App. 192, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 36

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 2, 1937

Docket25961

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 189 S.E. 675 (Hargett 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

Hargett v. State, 189 S.E. 675, 55 Ga. App. 192, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 36 (Ga. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

MacIntsbe, J.

1. The evidence authorized the inference that a conspiracy existed between the defendant and other persons, to commit the robbery, and that the defendant aided and abetted the robbery by supplying two pistols used by the other persons for that purpose.

[193]*193Decided February 2, 1937. B. Terry, for plaintiff in error. A. J. Perryman, solicitor-general, W. B. Flournoy, contra.

2. “It is necessary that the testimony of an accomplice be corroborated by evidence connecting the defendant with the perpetration of the offense, in order to authorize a conviction. It is not required that this corroboration shall of itself be sufficient to warrant a verdict, or that the testimony of the accomplice be corroborated in every material particular. Taylor v. State, 110 Ga. 151 [35 S. E. 161]; Dixon v. State, 116 Ga. 186 [42 S. E. 357]. 'Slight evidence from an extraneous source identifying the accused as a participator in the criminal act will be sufficient corroboration of the accomplice to support a verdict. Evans v. State, 78 Ga. 351; Roberts v. State, 55 Ga. 220. The sufficiency of the corroboration of the testimony of the accomplice to produce conviction of the defendant’s guilt is peculiarly a matter for the jury to determine. If the verdict is founded on slight evidence of corroboration connecting the defendant with the crime, it can not be said, as a matter of law, that the verdict is contrary to the evidence. Chapman v. State, 109 Ga. 165 (34 S. E. 369).” Hargrove v. State, 125 Ga. 270, 274 (54 S. E. 164).

3. This is not a ease where the facts as detailed by the accomplice are simply the robbery and its details and the accomplice says the defend-' ant participated, but in this case there were other witnesses of facts which tended to show that the defendant on trial was implicated in the crime. Childers v. State, 52 Ga. 106. In the instant case the jury were authorized to find that the accomplice was sufficiently corroborated. See also, Whaley v. State, 177 Ga. 757 (171 S. E. 290).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Guerry, J., eonour.

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

MacIntsbe, J.

1. The evidence authorized the inference that a conspiracy existed between the defendant and other persons, to commit the robbery, and that the defendant aided and abetted the robbery by supplying two pistols used by the other persons for that purpose.

[193]*193Decided February 2, 1937. B. Terry, for plaintiff in error. A. J. Perryman, solicitor-general, W. B. Flournoy, contra.

2. “It is necessary that the testimony of an accomplice be corroborated by evidence connecting the defendant with the perpetration of the offense, in order to authorize a conviction. It is not required that this corroboration shall of itself be sufficient to warrant a verdict, or that the testimony of the accomplice be corroborated in every material particular. Taylor v. State, 110 Ga. 151 [35 S. E. 161]; Dixon v. State, 116 Ga. 186 [42 S. E. 357]. 'Slight evidence from an extraneous source identifying the accused as a participator in the criminal act will be sufficient corroboration of the accomplice to support a verdict. Evans v. State, 78 Ga. 351; Roberts v. State, 55 Ga. 220. The sufficiency of the corroboration of the testimony of the accomplice to produce conviction of the defendant’s guilt is peculiarly a matter for the jury to determine. If the verdict is founded on slight evidence of corroboration connecting the defendant with the crime, it can not be said, as a matter of law, that the verdict is contrary to the evidence. Chapman v. State, 109 Ga. 165 (34 S. E. 369).” Hargrove v. State, 125 Ga. 270, 274 (54 S. E. 164).

3. This is not a ease where the facts as detailed by the accomplice are simply the robbery and its details and the accomplice says the defend-' ant participated, but in this case there were other witnesses of facts which tended to show that the defendant on trial was implicated in the crime. Childers v. State, 52 Ga. 106. In the instant case the jury were authorized to find that the accomplice was sufficiently corroborated. See also, Whaley v. State, 177 Ga. 757 (171 S. E. 290).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Guerry, J., eonour.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 S.E. 675, 55 Ga. App. 192, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hargett-v-state-gactapp-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack