McWhorter v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

McWhorter v. State

112 S.E. 651, 28 Ga. App. 626, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 732

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 13, 1922

Docket13461

StatusPublished

This text of 112 S.E. 651 (McWhorter 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

McWhorter v. State, 112 S.E. 651, 28 Ga. App. 626, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 732 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of having and receiving stolen goods, knowing that they were stolen. The person who stole the goods had been duly convicted. The evidence fully authorized the conviction. The assignments of error in his motion for a new trial show no reversible error. The ■ verdict having the approval of the trial judge, it was not error, for any reason assigned, to overrule the motion for a new trial.

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.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of having and receiving stolen goods, knowing that they were stolen. The person who stole the goods had been duly convicted. The evidence fully authorized the conviction. The assignments of error in his motion for a new trial show no reversible error. The ■ verdict having the approval of the trial judge, it was not error, for any reason assigned, to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 S.E. 651, 28 Ga. App. 626, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcwhorter-v-state-gactapp-1922.