McConnell v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

McConnell v. State

88 S.E. 408, 17 Ga. App. 752, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 904

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 24, 1916

Docket7123

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 88 S.E. 408 (McConnell 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

McConnell v. State, 88 S.E. 408, 17 Ga. App. 752, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 904 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

1. Under an indictment for simple larceny, a defendant can be convicted although the evidence shows that the property described in the indictment was stolen from a house. Mattox v. State, 115 Ga. 212 (9), 222 (41 S. E. 709); Gardner v. State, 105 Ga. 662 (31 S. E. 577). See also Roberts v. State, 83 Ga. 369 (9 S. E. 675). The evidence in this case failed to show that the door of the barn, from which the property was stolen, was either locked or fastened at the time of the theft. The conviction of the accused of simple larceny as charged in the indictment was therefore not contrary to law.

2. While the evidence as to the value of the stolen cotton and cottonseed was rather vague and indefinite, it was sufficient to support the conviction of the accused.

3. The answer of the judge of the county court to the certiorari served upon him, not having been traversed, is controlling as to the rulings of the court during the trial, and the evidence adduced thereon. When the answer is considered, the petition for certiorari fails to show any legal reason why a new trial should be had, and the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the same. Judgment affirmed.

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

Broyles, J.

1. Under an indictment for simple larceny, a defendant can be convicted although the evidence shows that the property described in the indictment was stolen from a house. Mattox v. State, 115 Ga. 212 (9), 222 (41 S. E. 709); Gardner v. State, 105 Ga. 662 (31 S. E. 577). See also Roberts v. State, 83 Ga. 369 (9 S. E. 675). The evidence in this case failed to show that the door of the barn, from which the property was stolen, was either locked or fastened at the time of the theft. The conviction of the accused of simple larceny as charged in the indictment was therefore not contrary to law.

2. While the evidence as to the value of the stolen cotton and cottonseed was rather vague and indefinite, it was sufficient to support the conviction of the accused.

3. The answer of the judge of the county court to the certiorari served upon him, not having been traversed, is controlling as to the rulings of the court during the trial, and the evidence adduced thereon. When the answer is considered, the petition for certiorari fails to show any legal reason why a new trial should be had, and the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the same. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.E. 408, 17 Ga. App. 752, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcconnell-v-state-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack