King v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

King v. State

132 S.E. 246, 35 Ga. App. 169, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 605

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 2, 1926

Docket16975

StatusPublished

This text of 132 S.E. 246 (King 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

King v. State, 132 S.E. 246, 35 Ga. App. 169, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 605 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The plaintiff in error contends that the conviction of burglary should not stand because there was not sufficient corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice. The jury were fully authorized to find that there was such corroboration. The judge, having approved the verdict, did not, for any reason pointed out, err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, <7., concur.

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

Luke, J.

The plaintiff in error contends that the conviction of burglary should not stand because there was not sufficient corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice. The jury were fully authorized to find that there was such corroboration. The judge, having approved the verdict, did not, for any reason pointed out, err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, <7., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 S.E. 246, 35 Ga. App. 169, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-state-gactapp-1926.