Jolly v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Jolly v. State

153 S.E. 432, 41 Ga. App. 494, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 952

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 14, 1930

Docket20456

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 153 S.E. 432 (Jolly 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

Jolly v. State, 153 S.E. 432, 41 Ga. App. 494, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 952 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Beoyx.es, C. J.

1. “To sustain a conviction [of a felony] upon the testimony of an accomplice, there must be corroborating circumstances which, in themselves and -¡/independently of the testimony of the accomplice, directly connect the defendant with the crime, or lead to the inference that he is guilty (italics ours).” Childers v. State, 52 Ga. 106; Baker v. State, 14 Ga. App. 578 (4), 585 (80 S. E. 805); Stokes v. State, 19 Ga. App. 235, 238 (91 S. E. 271). Eaets which create merely a grave suspicion of the defendant’s guilt are insufficient to corroborate the testimony of the accomplice (McCalla v. State, 66 Ga. 346). “Even where the facts in proof so far agree with the evidence of the accomplice as well-nigh to convert a grave suspicion against the accused into a moral conviction of his guilt, yet if these facts, when considered entirely apart from and independently of the evidence of the accomplice, fail in themselves, and without regard to the testimony of the accomplice, to connect the accused with the commission of the crime, a conviction is unauthorized.” Stokes v. State, supra.

2. Under the above-stated ruling and the facts of the instant ease, there was no sufficient corroboration of the testimony of the accomplice, and the defendant’s conviction was unauthorized. As this ruling controls the case, the special assignments of error are not considered. The refusal to grant a new trial was error.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Beoyx.es, C. J.

1. “To sustain a conviction [of a felony] upon the testimony of an accomplice, there must be corroborating circumstances which, in themselves and -¡/independently of the testimony of the accomplice, directly connect the defendant with the crime, or lead to the inference that he is guilty (italics ours).” Childers v. State, 52 Ga. 106; Baker v. State, 14 Ga. App. 578 (4), 585 (80 S. E. 805); Stokes v. State, 19 Ga. App. 235, 238 (91 S. E. 271). Eaets which create merely a grave suspicion of the defendant’s guilt are insufficient to corroborate the testimony of the accomplice (McCalla v. State, 66 Ga. 346). “Even where the facts in proof so far agree with the evidence of the accomplice as well-nigh to convert a grave suspicion against the accused into a moral conviction of his guilt, yet if these facts, when considered entirely apart from and independently of the evidence of the accomplice, fail in themselves, and without regard to the testimony of the accomplice, to connect the accused with the commission of the crime, a conviction is unauthorized.” Stokes v. State, supra.

2. Under the above-stated ruling and the facts of the instant ease, there was no sufficient corroboration of the testimony of the accomplice, and the defendant’s conviction was unauthorized. As this ruling controls the case, the special assignments of error are not considered. The refusal to grant a new trial was error.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 S.E. 432, 41 Ga. App. 494, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jolly-v-state-gactapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack