Maxwell v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Maxwell v. State

103 S.E. 178, 25 Ga. App. 306, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 760

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 11, 1920

Docket11346

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 103 S.E. 178 (Maxwell 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

Maxwell v. State, 103 S.E. 178, 25 Ga. App. 306, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 760 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

Tinder the evidence in this case the jury were authorized to find that the defendant had the intent to steal at the time he procured the coat alleged to have been stolen. The defendant [308]*308claimed that he borrowed the coat with no intent to steal; the jury, however, under appropriate instructions, must determine what the intent of the defendant was at the time of procuring the coat. The verdict has evidence to support it and has the approval of the trial judge. For no reason assigned do we find error requiring a new trial. See Rice v. State, 6 Ga. App. 160 (64 S. E. 575); Bryant v. State, 8 Ga. App. 389 (69 S. E. 121). And see Munn v. State, 12 Ga. App. 479 (77 S. E. 591). If, as contended in the brief of counsel for the defendant, his wife borrowed the coat and he had nothing to do with holding it, we apprehend that the jury would have found a different verdict. The record before us does not bear out the contention of the defendant in this regard.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

Tinder the evidence in this case the jury were authorized to find that the defendant had the intent to steal at the time he procured the coat alleged to have been stolen. The defendant [308]*308claimed that he borrowed the coat with no intent to steal; the jury, however, under appropriate instructions, must determine what the intent of the defendant was at the time of procuring the coat. The verdict has evidence to support it and has the approval of the trial judge. For no reason assigned do we find error requiring a new trial. See Rice v. State, 6 Ga. App. 160 (64 S. E. 575); Bryant v. State, 8 Ga. App. 389 (69 S. E. 121). And see Munn v. State, 12 Ga. App. 479 (77 S. E. 591). If, as contended in the brief of counsel for the defendant, his wife borrowed the coat and he had nothing to do with holding it, we apprehend that the jury would have found a different verdict. The record before us does not bear out the contention of the defendant in this regard.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 S.E. 178, 25 Ga. App. 306, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maxwell-v-state-gactapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack