Miller v. State

176 S.E. 907, 50 Ga. App. 72, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 625
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Miller v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 53 Ga. App. 275
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided October 29, 1934·No. 24242·Published

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. “Wliile recent possession of stolen goods unexplained will justify a conviction for larceny, the mere possession of goods several months subsequent to the time they were alleged to have been stolen and a failure to satisfactorily account for such possession will not alone authorize a conviction.” Calloway v. State, 111 Ga. 832 (36 S. E. 63) ; Turner v. State, 114 Ga. 45 (39 S. E. 863).

2. Applying the foregoing ruling to the facts of the instant ease, the conviction of larceny was unauthorized, and the refusal to grant a new trial was error.

Judgment reversed.

Maolntyre mid Guerry, JJ., oonour.

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

Miller v. State, 176 S.E. 907, 50 Ga. App. 72, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 625 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934).

176 S.E. 907 (Miller v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Calloway v. State
36 S.E. 63 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1900)
Turner v. State
39 S.E. 863 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1901)