Home/Supreme Court of Georgia/Melvin v. State

Melvin v. State

48 S.E. 198, 120 Ga. 490, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 609
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 12, 1904
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 48 S.E. 198 (Melvin 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
Melvin v. State, 48 S.E. 198, 120 Ga. 490, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 609 (Ga. 1904).

Opinion

Cobb, J.

Descriptive averments in indictments are to be considered in the light of the presumption that the accused is innocent. Property alleged to have been stolen should be described with sufficient definiteness to enable the accused to ascertain the specific charge he is called on to meet, and, in the event of a second prosecution, to plead his former acquittal or conviction. If the accused is satisfied to go to trial on an indictment for larceny containing a mere general description of the property alleged to have been stolen, he can not complain after conviction. But where on arraignment he objects to the general description by special demurrer, the indictment should be quashed. The description “one shovel” is entirely too general. There are numerous varieties of shovels, ranging from the tiny implement used by the child in his play upon the sand pile to the immense appliances propelled by steam and used in mines and elsewhere. The accused was entitled to know what class of shovel he was charged with having stolen. See Brown v. State, 116 Ga. 559. The State relies upon Sanders v. State, 86 Ga. 717, a case of larceny after trust, where the property was described as “15 head of beef cattle,” and upon Powell v. State, 88 Ga. 32, a case of larceny from the person, where the property was described as “one watch and chain.” In indictments for compound larceny, the allegations in reference to the aggravating fact serve to individualize the transaction, and a more general description of the property is permissible in such cases than would be permitted in indictments for simple larceny.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Tucker v. State
145 S.E.2d 751 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Simpson v. State
112 S.E.2d 314 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1959)
Rollins v. State
111 S.E.2d 63 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1959)
Kyler v. State
94 S.E.2d 429 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1956)
Burns v. State
11 S.E.2d 350 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)
Streeter v. State
3 S.E.2d 235 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1939)
Fuller v. State
197 S.E. 58 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1938)
Peek v. State
189 S.E. 372 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1937)
Bivins v. State
170 S.E. 513 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1933)
Pharr v. State
161 S.E. 643 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)
State v. Baker, Alias Bland, Alias Drew
138 A. 736 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1927)
Glass v. State
106 S.E. 13 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)
Blackmon v. State
100 S.E. 730 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)
Bright v. State
72 S.E. 519 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1911)
Ayers v. State
59 S.E. 924 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1907)
Cannon v. State
54 S.E. 692 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
48 S.E. 198, 120 Ga. 490, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melvin-v-state-ga-1904.