Jester v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Jester v. State

97 S.E. 563, 23 Ga. App. 132, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 87

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 3, 1918

Docket10021

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 97 S.E. 563 (Jester 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

Jester v. State, 97 S.E. 563, 23 Ga. App. 132, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 87 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, P. J.

1. “Whether an explanation which the accused makes of his possession of property recently stolen'is consistent with hjs innocence is exclusively a question of fact for determination by the jury, and this court has no right to interfere with that determination, unless it is wholly unsupported by the evidence, or by any reasonable theory deducible therefrom.” Jordan v. State, 9 Ga. App. 578 (3) (71 S. E. 875). Under all the particular facts of the instant case the jury were authorized to disregard the explanation of the accused as to how he came into possession of the stolen, automobile.

2. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and no substantial merit appears in .-any of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth, J., concurs. Stephens, J., not presiding.

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

Broyles, P. J.

1. “Whether an explanation which the accused makes of his possession of property recently stolen'is consistent with hjs innocence is exclusively a question of fact for determination by the jury, and this court has no right to interfere with that determination, unless it is wholly unsupported by the evidence, or by any reasonable theory deducible therefrom.” Jordan v. State, 9 Ga. App. 578 (3) (71 S. E. 875). Under all the particular facts of the instant case the jury were authorized to disregard the explanation of the accused as to how he came into possession of the stolen, automobile.

2. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and no substantial merit appears in .-any of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth, J., concurs. Stephens, J., not presiding.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 S.E. 563, 23 Ga. App. 132, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jester-v-state-gactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack