Hicks v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hicks v. State

114 S.E. 911, 29 Ga. App. 272, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 237

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 12, 1922

Docket13859

StatusPublished

This text of 114 S.E. 911 (Hicks 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

Hicks v. State, 114 S.E. 911, 29 Ga. App. 272, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 237 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke,- J.

The indictment, which was for extortion by a public .officer (Penal Code of 1910, §§ 302-3), charged that the defendant extorted $30 in money from J. B. Brantley, and that this money was the property of J. B. Brantley, whereas the undisputed evidence showed that the $30, if extorted at all, was extorted from P. B. Brantley (brother of J. B. Brantley), and that it was the property of P. B. Brantley. This was a fatal variance between the indictment and the proof, and the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Blooclworth, J., concur.

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

Luke,- J.

The indictment, which was for extortion by a public .officer (Penal Code of 1910, §§ 302-3), charged that the defendant extorted $30 in money from J. B. Brantley, and that this money was the property of J. B. Brantley, whereas the undisputed evidence showed that the $30, if extorted at all, was extorted from P. B. Brantley (brother of J. B. Brantley), and that it was the property of P. B. Brantley. This was a fatal variance between the indictment and the proof, and the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Blooclworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 S.E. 911, 29 Ga. App. 272, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hicks-v-state-gactapp-1922.