Homer v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Homer v. State

224 S.E.2d 117, 137 Ga. App. 485, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 2501

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 3, 1976

Docket51740

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 224 S.E.2d 117 (Homer 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

Homer v. State, 224 S.E.2d 117, 137 Ga. App. 485, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 2501 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Stolz, Judge.

This is an appeal from defendant Homer’s conviction for theft by receiving stolen property. The evidence in the case showed that certain checks imprinted with the name D. J.’s Speedy Car Wash were discovered to be missing after the premises had been broken into; that the defendant knew that the checks had D. J.’s Speedy Car Wash imprinted on them; that the defendant had attempted to pass one printed check less than twenty-four hours after the break-in; that police found two such checks in the defendant’s automobile; and that the defendant admitted that he had an idea that the checks were, bad:

This court is still committed to the rule that unexplained possession of recently stolen goods; is not sufficient in itself to authorize a conviction for receiving stolen goods, but that such possession may be used in *486 conjunction with other evidence, such as that noted above, to infer the knowledge required by the statute. Higginbotham v. State, 124 Ga. App. 489 (3) (184 SE2d 231).

Submitted January 13, 1976 Decided February 3, 1976. Clayton Jones, Jr., for appellant. William S. Lee, District Attorney, Dan MacDougald, III, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., and Clark, J., concur.

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

Stolz, Judge.

This is an appeal from defendant Homer’s conviction for theft by receiving stolen property. The evidence in the case showed that certain checks imprinted with the name D. J.’s Speedy Car Wash were discovered to be missing after the premises had been broken into; that the defendant knew that the checks had D. J.’s Speedy Car Wash imprinted on them; that the defendant had attempted to pass one printed check less than twenty-four hours after the break-in; that police found two such checks in the defendant’s automobile; and that the defendant admitted that he had an idea that the checks were, bad:

This court is still committed to the rule that unexplained possession of recently stolen goods; is not sufficient in itself to authorize a conviction for receiving stolen goods, but that such possession may be used in *486 conjunction with other evidence, such as that noted above, to infer the knowledge required by the statute. Higginbotham v. State, 124 Ga. App. 489 (3) (184 SE2d 231).

Submitted January 13, 1976 Decided February 3, 1976. Clayton Jones, Jr., for appellant. William S. Lee, District Attorney, Dan MacDougald, III, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., and Clark, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 S.E.2d 117, 137 Ga. App. 485, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 2501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/homer-v-state-gactapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack