Jerome v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Jerome v. State

239 S.E.2d 541, 143 Ga. App. 649, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2446

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 26, 1977

Docket54566

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 239 S.E.2d 541 (Jerome 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

Jerome v. State, 239 S.E.2d 541, 143 Ga. App. 649, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2446 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Deen, Presiding Judge.

The defendant appeals from a conviction of theft by taking on the general grounds only. The evidence is uncontroverted that Jerome, after purchasing one article at Sears Roebuck, went to another department and picked up two tennis rackets, then to a third department where he purchased paint, and that he left the store with two purchases charged to the account of his mother, a store employee, and with the tennis rackets, which had not been charged or paid for. Thus the only question is whether he removed the rackets through inadvertence or with intent to steal. In such a case the jury, if the case is being tried before a jury, should be charged, or the court if without a jury should weigh, the elements of " 'knowledgeable possession.” Tift v. State, 133 Ga. App. 455 (2) (211 SE2d 409). But whether or not mens rea, the specific intent to do an unlawful act, exists, is a question of fact. "The question of criminal intent is for the jury and not for the court.” Brittain v. State, 41 Ga. App. 577 (2) (153 SE 622). The evidence shows that the defendant took the tennis rackets to another department, that he failed to call them to the attention of the paint salesman, and that he did not check his sales slip to see whether they had been billed. The question of felonious intent remains for the trier of fact.

Judgment affirmed.

Webb and Birdsong, JJ., concur.

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

Deen, Presiding Judge.

The defendant appeals from a conviction of theft by taking on the general grounds only. The evidence is uncontroverted that Jerome, after purchasing one article at Sears Roebuck, went to another department and picked up two tennis rackets, then to a third department where he purchased paint, and that he left the store with two purchases charged to the account of his mother, a store employee, and with the tennis rackets, which had not been charged or paid for. Thus the only question is whether he removed the rackets through inadvertence or with intent to steal. In such a case the jury, if the case is being tried before a jury, should be charged, or the court if without a jury should weigh, the elements of " 'knowledgeable possession.” Tift v. State, 133 Ga. App. 455 (2) (211 SE2d 409). But whether or not mens rea, the specific intent to do an unlawful act, exists, is a question of fact. "The question of criminal intent is for the jury and not for the court.” Brittain v. State, 41 Ga. App. 577 (2) (153 SE 622). The evidence shows that the defendant took the tennis rackets to another department, that he failed to call them to the attention of the paint salesman, and that he did not check his sales slip to see whether they had been billed. The question of felonious intent remains for the trier of fact.

Judgment affirmed.

Webb and Birdsong, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 S.E.2d 541, 143 Ga. App. 649, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jerome-v-state-gactapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack