Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Humes v. State

Humes v. State

237 S.E.2d 704, 143 Ga. App. 229, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2263
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 8, 1977
Docket54223
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 237 S.E.2d 704 (Humes 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
Humes v. State, 237 S.E.2d 704, 143 Ga. App. 229, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2263 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

Birdsong, Judge.

The appellant Humes was indicted, tried, and convicted upon a charge of burglary at a bench trial. He was sentenced to serve twenty years. While there are four enumerations of error, each relates to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. Held:

The evidence in this case shows that a Woolworth’s store was unlawfully entered during the nighttime and certain stereo equipment and jewelry unlawfully removed. The property was recovered and identified as belonging to Woolworth’s and as having been unlawfully removed from the premises. Humes was apprehended within two blocks of the burglary and had glass in the soles of his shoes. Entry into the store had been obtained by breaking a plate glass window. Humes admitted possessing stereo equipment and jewelry, but asserted alternately that he had purchased the property from some unknown person on the street or had brought it from home.

When property alleged to be stolen is proven to be stolen property and the crime charged has been *230 committed by someone, the recent unexplained possession of the stolen property by the defendant is a circumstance from which guilt may be inferred. Gilliard v. State, 17 Ga. App. 364 (86 SE 939) (1915). From this, it may be inferred that the defendant charged committed the theft proven. This being so, no further proof, circumstantial or direct, showing that the appellant committed the burglary was necessary for conviction. Selph v. State, 142 Ga. App. 26, 29 (234 SE2d 831) (1977).

Submitted July 7, 1977 Decided September 8, 1977. Eric Welch, for appellant. Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Joseph J. Drolet, Donald J. Stein, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen,P. J., and Webb,J., concur.

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

Related

Jones v. State
308 S.E.2d 50 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1983)
Barr v. State
303 S.E.2d 132 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1983)
Driggers v. State
296 S.E.2d 780 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)
Henderson v. State
291 S.E.2d 422 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)
Rogers v. State
289 S.E.2d 29 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)
Russell v. State
287 S.E.2d 286 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
Williamson v. State
281 S.E.2d 512 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1981)
Smith v. State
282 S.E.2d 392 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
Tommie v. State
279 S.E.2d 510 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
Williamson v. State
275 S.E.2d 699 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1980)
Rakestraw v. State
271 S.E.2d 696 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
237 S.E.2d 704, 143 Ga. App. 229, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/humes-v-state-gactapp-1977.