Howington v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Howington v. State

138 S.E.2d 677, 110 Ga. App. 452, 1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 665

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 22, 1964

Docket40936

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 138 S.E.2d 677 (Howington 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

Howington v. State, 138 S.E.2d 677, 110 Ga. App. 452, 1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 665 (Ga. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Hall, Judge.

1. This evidence does not present a case in which the defendant’s guilt was wholly dependent upon the inference arising from the defendant’s possession of the stolen property shortly after the larceny, and the possession, as a matter of law, was explained by unimpeached, uncontradicted and undiscredited testimony, and there was no circumstance to supply a reason why the jury did not believe the explanation of possession offered by the defendant. The conflict between the defendant’s first statement that he acquired the property from unknown persons whom he had never seen before, and his later statements *454 before the trial and his statement and the testimony of his witnesses at the trial, and the other circumstances in evidence, authorized the jury to find that the defendant’s explanation of his possession of the stolen property was not satisfactory. Stewart v. State, 17 Ga. App. 827 (88 SE 715); Tate v. State, 47 Ga. App. 784, 786 (171 SE 557); Moxley v. State, 62 Ga. App. 512, 514 (8 SE2d 699); Parker v. State, 63 Ga. App. 249 (10 SE2d 720). Accord Gibbs v. State, 8 Ga. App. 107, 108 (68 SE 742); 52 CJS 935, § 110.

2. The trial court’s charge on the subject of admissions by a criminal defendant was not error. Timbs v. State, 71 Ga. App. 141 (30 SE2d 290).

The trial court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Nichols, P. J., and Bussell, J., concur.

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

Hall, Judge.

1. This evidence does not present a case in which the defendant’s guilt was wholly dependent upon the inference arising from the defendant’s possession of the stolen property shortly after the larceny, and the possession, as a matter of law, was explained by unimpeached, uncontradicted and undiscredited testimony, and there was no circumstance to supply a reason why the jury did not believe the explanation of possession offered by the defendant. The conflict between the defendant’s first statement that he acquired the property from unknown persons whom he had never seen before, and his later statements *454 before the trial and his statement and the testimony of his witnesses at the trial, and the other circumstances in evidence, authorized the jury to find that the defendant’s explanation of his possession of the stolen property was not satisfactory. Stewart v. State, 17 Ga. App. 827 (88 SE 715); Tate v. State, 47 Ga. App. 784, 786 (171 SE 557); Moxley v. State, 62 Ga. App. 512, 514 (8 SE2d 699); Parker v. State, 63 Ga. App. 249 (10 SE2d 720). Accord Gibbs v. State, 8 Ga. App. 107, 108 (68 SE 742); 52 CJS 935, § 110.

2. The trial court’s charge on the subject of admissions by a criminal defendant was not error. Timbs v. State, 71 Ga. App. 141 (30 SE2d 290).

The trial court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Nichols, P. J., and Bussell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 S.E.2d 677, 110 Ga. App. 452, 1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howington-v-state-gactapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack