McKissick v. State

76 S.E. 71, 11 Ga. App. 721, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 137
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided October 22, 1912·No. 3955·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Russell, J.

1. Although the indictment, if treated as charging the defendant as accessory after the fact of the offense of burglary, may be technically defective, the true character of a criminal accusation is not fixed by the denomination given it by the pleader, but by its allegations; and the indictment in the present case is a sufficient charge against the defendant of the statutory offense of receiving stolen goods. Penal Code (1910), § 168.

2. There was no abuse of discretion in refusing a continuance.

3. Many of the numerous assignments of error are without merit, and none of them offer any substantial reason why the judgment of the lower court, in refusing a new trial, should be reversed.

4. The evidence fully supports the verdict. Judgment affirmed.

G. R. Hutchens, H. J. McBride, for plaintiff in error. J. R. Hutcheson, solicitor-general, contra.

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

McKissick v. State, 76 S.E. 71, 11 Ga. App. 721, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 137 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

76 S.E. 71 (McKissick v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Garrett v. State
211 S.E.2d 441 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1974)
Brusnighan v. State
71 S.E.2d 698 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
Perkins v. State
115 S.E. 27 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Luther v. State
1920 OK CR 223 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1920)
Sneed v. State
85 S.E. 354 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1915)