Milner v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Milner v. State

66 S.E. 280, 7 Ga. App. 82, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 544

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 4, 1909

Docket2186

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 66 S.E. 280 (Milner 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

Milner v. State, 66 S.E. 280, 7 Ga. App. 82, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 544 (Ga. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. Exclusive of tlie testimony of the accomplice, tlie evidence

of the corpus delicti is uncertain and unsatisfactory; and the law requires that the testimony of the accomplice should be corroborated by other facts and circumstances, tending to establish the commission of the crime as charged in the indictment. Penal Code, §1005; Allen v. State, 4 Ga. App. 458 (61 S. E. 840); Bines v. State, 118 Ga. 320 (45 S. E. 376, 68 L. R. A. 33) ; 1 Enc. Ev. 105, and cases cited; Cornell v. State, 24 Tex. App. 404 (6 S. W. 318).

2. It is well settled that to warrant a conviction based on the testimony of an accomplice, the corroborating evidence must, independently of his testimony, connect the defendant with the commission of the offense and tend to show his guilt. A grave suspicion of the defendant’s guilt is not Sufficient. The corroborating evidence should be of such weight and character that, when considered in connection with the testimony of the accomplice, the defendant’s guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Childers v. State, 52 Ga. 106; Chapmans. State, 112 Ga. 56 (37 S. E. 102); Cochran v. State, 113 Ga. 736 (39 S. E. 337) ; Brandon v. State, 108 Ga. 786 (33 S. E. 811).

3. The verdict of guilty in this case rests entirely upon the uncorroborated testimony of the accomplice, and is therefore unauthorized by law.

Judgment reversed.

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

Hill, C. J.

1. Exclusive of tlie testimony of the accomplice, tlie evidence

of the corpus delicti is uncertain and unsatisfactory; and the law requires that the testimony of the accomplice should be corroborated by other facts and circumstances, tending to establish the commission of the crime as charged in the indictment. Penal Code, §1005; Allen v. State, 4 Ga. App. 458 (61 S. E. 840); Bines v. State, 118 Ga. 320 (45 S. E. 376, 68 L. R. A. 33) ; 1 Enc. Ev. 105, and cases cited; Cornell v. State, 24 Tex. App. 404 (6 S. W. 318).

2. It is well settled that to warrant a conviction based on the testimony of an accomplice, the corroborating evidence must, independently of his testimony, connect the defendant with the commission of the offense and tend to show his guilt. A grave suspicion of the defendant’s guilt is not Sufficient. The corroborating evidence should be of such weight and character that, when considered in connection with the testimony of the accomplice, the defendant’s guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Childers v. State, 52 Ga. 106; Chapmans. State, 112 Ga. 56 (37 S. E. 102); Cochran v. State, 113 Ga. 736 (39 S. E. 337) ; Brandon v. State, 108 Ga. 786 (33 S. E. 811).

3. The verdict of guilty in this case rests entirely upon the uncorroborated testimony of the accomplice, and is therefore unauthorized by law.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 S.E. 280, 7 Ga. App. 82, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milner-v-state-gactapp-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack