Holt v. State

113 S.E. 49, 28 Ga. App. 758, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 840
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided July 11, 1922·No. 13644·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

Whether there was sufficient corroboration of the testimony of the defendant’s accomplice was the only question in this case. The undisputed testimony of a witness for the State was that, after the commission of the offense charged,.the accomplice stated in the. presence of the defendant substantially what he testified to on the trial, to wit, that the defendant was a party to the offense charged, and it does not appear from the record that the defendant denied this statement of the accomplice at the time it was made. Under the facts of the case, the jury were authorized to find that the charges against the accused made in his presence by the accomplice were not denied by him, and to find that his silence under the circumstances amounted to an admission of his guilt (Penal Code, § 1029), and to find that this admission was a sufficient corroboration of the testimony of the accomplice. Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Holt v. State, 113 S.E. 49, 28 Ga. App. 758, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 840 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

113 S.E. 49 (Holt v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Addison v. State
192 S.E.2d 556 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1972)
Morris v. State
78 S.E.2d 90 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)
Eberhart v. State
76 S.E.2d 832 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)
Moon v. State
68 S.E.2d 617 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
Eskew v. State
30 S.E.2d 346 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1944)
Thrasher v. State
24 S.E.2d 222 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1943)
Bryant v. State
16 S.E.2d 241 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1941)
Mathis v. State
191 S.E. 272 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1937)
People v. Jones
262 P. 361 (California Court of Appeal, 1927)
People v. Hendricks
236 P. 214 (California Court of Appeal, 1925)