Laminack v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Laminack v. State

187 S.E. 620, 54 Ga. App. 207, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 494

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 11, 1936

Docket25803

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 187 S.E. 620 (Laminack 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

Laminack v. State, 187 S.E. 620, 54 Ga. App. 207, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 494 (Ga. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. Where one has stolen an automobile and is transporting it away from where it was stolen, another person who, knowing that tile oar has been stolen, assists the thief in the asportation of the stolen property, is guilty as a principal in the offense committed. Green v. State, 114 Ga. 918 (3) (41 S. E. 55); Conner v. State, 25 Ga. 515 (5), 521, 522 (71 Am. D. 184); Brown v. State, 7 Okl. Cr. 678 (126 Pac. 263, 265); Devine v. State, 132 Miss. 492 (96 So. 696); Good v. State, 21 Okl. Cr. 328 (207 Pac. 565, 29 A. L. R. 1029, 1031); Moeller v. People, 70 Colo. 223 (11) (199 Pac. 414) ; State v. Behrens, 153 Wash. 380 (2) (279 Pac. 607).

2. Applying the foregoing ruling to the facts of the instant case, the conviction of the accused was authorized. The special grounds of the motion for new trial are merely elaborations of the general grounds. The court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. Where one has stolen an automobile and is transporting it away from where it was stolen, another person who, knowing that tile oar has been stolen, assists the thief in the asportation of the stolen property, is guilty as a principal in the offense committed. Green v. State, 114 Ga. 918 (3) (41 S. E. 55); Conner v. State, 25 Ga. 515 (5), 521, 522 (71 Am. D. 184); Brown v. State, 7 Okl. Cr. 678 (126 Pac. 263, 265); Devine v. State, 132 Miss. 492 (96 So. 696); Good v. State, 21 Okl. Cr. 328 (207 Pac. 565, 29 A. L. R. 1029, 1031); Moeller v. People, 70 Colo. 223 (11) (199 Pac. 414) ; State v. Behrens, 153 Wash. 380 (2) (279 Pac. 607).

2. Applying the foregoing ruling to the facts of the instant case, the conviction of the accused was authorized. The special grounds of the motion for new trial are merely elaborations of the general grounds. The court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 S.E. 620, 54 Ga. App. 207, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laminack-v-state-gactapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack