McGinty v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

McGinty v. State

23 S.E. 831, 97 Ga. 368

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 2, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 23 S.E. 831 (McGinty v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McGinty v. State, 23 S.E. 831, 97 Ga. 368 (Ga. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Simmons, C. J.

1. Where the offense of robbery is once actually completed by the felonious and violent taking of property from the person of another into the possession of the thief, it cannot be purged by any subsequent redelivery of the property to the owner; and this is true although the thief may have retained possession but a short length of time. 2 Bishop, New Crim. Law, §§1161, 1163; 2 Russell, Crimes, *104, and cases cited. See also Young v. The State, 82 Ga. 752; Bishop v. The State, 86 Ga. 329.

2. After a careful examination of the various grounds of the motion for a new trial, it does not appear that the trial judge committed any error. There was sufficient evidence to warrant the verdict, and there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to set it aside. Judgment affirmed.

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

Simmons, C. J.

1. Where the offense of robbery is once actually completed by the felonious and violent taking of property from the person of another into the possession of the thief, it cannot be purged by any subsequent redelivery of the property to the owner; and this is true although the thief may have retained possession but a short length of time. 2 Bishop, New Crim. Law, §§1161, 1163; 2 Russell, Crimes, *104, and cases cited. See also Young v. The State, 82 Ga. 752; Bishop v. The State, 86 Ga. 329.

2. After a careful examination of the various grounds of the motion for a new trial, it does not appear that the trial judge committed any error. There was sufficient evidence to warrant the verdict, and there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to set it aside. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 S.E. 831, 97 Ga. 368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcginty-v-state-ga-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack