Hunter v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hunter v. State

23 S.E.2d 871, 68 Ga. App. 739, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 333

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 12, 1943

Docket29888.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 23 S.E.2d 871 (Hunter 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

Hunter v. State, 23 S.E.2d 871, 68 Ga. App. 739, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 333 (Ga. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

MacIntyre, J.

The defendant was convicted of burglary. His motion for new trial was overruled and he excepted.

The part of the indictment necessary for the determination of this case was: that the defendant “did break and enter the storehouse and place of business of the Columbia Baking Company, *740 operating under the trade-name of Stone Baking Company, where valuable goods were contained, with intent to steal, and after breaking as aforesaid, did wrongfully, fraudulently and privately take, steal and carry away, with intent to steal the same,” certain described personal property.

The defendant contends that “there is no evidence whatever that the defendant, or any one, gained an entrance into the storehouse and place of business by a breaking therein. The State did prove that the door to a certain tool room in the building had been broken and that some tools were missing from a locker in that room.” Counsel urges “that there was insufficient evidence to support the necessary allegation in the indictment that the defendant broke and entered the storehouse and place of business of Columbia Baking Company, and therefore the conviction should be set aside.” This court has held: “ One may be guilty of burglary as to a room or apartment in a house, portions of which are open to the public, where such force, however slight, as may be sufficient to effect an entrance is used in entering either a room or any other division of such public house.” Lockhart v. State, 3 Ga. App. 480 (60 S. E. 315). The jury was authorized to ñnd that the main building of the company was open to the public, and the burglary, or breaking, was as to the tool room, which was a portion or subdivision of such public house. The verdict was supported by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J.3 and Gardner, J., concur.

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

MacIntyre, J.

The defendant was convicted of burglary. His motion for new trial was overruled and he excepted.

The part of the indictment necessary for the determination of this case was: that the defendant “did break and enter the storehouse and place of business of the Columbia Baking Company, *740 operating under the trade-name of Stone Baking Company, where valuable goods were contained, with intent to steal, and after breaking as aforesaid, did wrongfully, fraudulently and privately take, steal and carry away, with intent to steal the same,” certain described personal property.

The defendant contends that “there is no evidence whatever that the defendant, or any one, gained an entrance into the storehouse and place of business by a breaking therein. The State did prove that the door to a certain tool room in the building had been broken and that some tools were missing from a locker in that room.” Counsel urges “that there was insufficient evidence to support the necessary allegation in the indictment that the defendant broke and entered the storehouse and place of business of Columbia Baking Company, and therefore the conviction should be set aside.” This court has held: “ One may be guilty of burglary as to a room or apartment in a house, portions of which are open to the public, where such force, however slight, as may be sufficient to effect an entrance is used in entering either a room or any other division of such public house.” Lockhart v. State, 3 Ga. App. 480 (60 S. E. 315). The jury was authorized to ñnd that the main building of the company was open to the public, and the burglary, or breaking, was as to the tool room, which was a portion or subdivision of such public house. The verdict was supported by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J.3 and Gardner, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 S.E.2d 871, 68 Ga. App. 739, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunter-v-state-gactapp-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack