Kimbrell v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Kimbrell v. State

194 S.E. 879, 57 Ga. App. 172, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 510

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 6, 1938

Docket26576

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 194 S.E. 879 (Kimbrell 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

Kimbrell v. State, 194 S.E. 879, 57 Ga. App. 172, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 510 (Ga. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Guerry, J.

1. In tlie trial of one charged with the offense of burglary, where the judge gave in charge to the jury the definition of that offense as contained in the Code, § 26-2633, it was not error to fail to charge the jury more fully as to the meaning of the 'terms “breaking and entering,” in the absence of a timely written request therefor. See Roark v. State, 105 Ga. 736 (32 S. E. 125); Pressley v. State, 132 Ga. 64 (63 S. E. 784); Jackson v. State, 132 Ga. 570 (64 S. E. 656); Cantrell v. State, 141 Ga. 98 (80 S. E. 649); Hughes v. State, 174 Ga. 165 (162 S. E. 389); Faison v. State, 13 Ga. App. 180 (79 S. E. 39).

2. The evidence for the State disclosed a series of burglaries of houses under construction, and larceny therefrom of quantities of paint, painting materials, articles of hardware, such as door-knobs, hinges, etc., and other building materials. Also, that thereafter the defendant and Hart, his codefendant, offered to sell and did sell and deliver to a hardware merchant a large quantity of the hardware; that a great quantity of the stolen property, including some of the articles taken from the house which the present indictment alleges the defendant burglarized, was found in the garage in the rear of I-Iart’s mother’s home; and that the house in question, though under construction, was closed, and that entry was gained therein through a window in the back of the house. This evidence was amply sufficient to support a finding of guilt against the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Guerry, J.

1. In tlie trial of one charged with the offense of burglary, where the judge gave in charge to the jury the definition of that offense as contained in the Code, § 26-2633, it was not error to fail to charge the jury more fully as to the meaning of the 'terms “breaking and entering,” in the absence of a timely written request therefor. See Roark v. State, 105 Ga. 736 (32 S. E. 125); Pressley v. State, 132 Ga. 64 (63 S. E. 784); Jackson v. State, 132 Ga. 570 (64 S. E. 656); Cantrell v. State, 141 Ga. 98 (80 S. E. 649); Hughes v. State, 174 Ga. 165 (162 S. E. 389); Faison v. State, 13 Ga. App. 180 (79 S. E. 39).

2. The evidence for the State disclosed a series of burglaries of houses under construction, and larceny therefrom of quantities of paint, painting materials, articles of hardware, such as door-knobs, hinges, etc., and other building materials. Also, that thereafter the defendant and Hart, his codefendant, offered to sell and did sell and deliver to a hardware merchant a large quantity of the hardware; that a great quantity of the stolen property, including some of the articles taken from the house which the present indictment alleges the defendant burglarized, was found in the garage in the rear of I-Iart’s mother’s home; and that the house in question, though under construction, was closed, and that entry was gained therein through a window in the back of the house. This evidence was amply sufficient to support a finding of guilt against the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 S.E. 879, 57 Ga. App. 172, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kimbrell-v-state-gactapp-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack