Moore v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Moore v. State

10 S.E.2d 718, 63 Ga. App. 262, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 53

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 19, 1940

Docket28341.

StatusPublished

This text of 10 S.E.2d 718 (Moore 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

Moore v. State, 10 S.E.2d 718, 63 Ga. App. 262, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 53 (Ga. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Gardner, J.

1. The evidence for the State, independently of the confession, tended to show that the house was set on fire, and connected the defendant therewith. A motive was shown, in that the defendant was being forced to give up the house burned; part of the lumber and material from the house burned was moved to the house to which the defendant had moved, on the night or early morning of the fire, and all the household goods of the defendant had been moved to the other house. The corpus delicti was sufficiently established, and the evidence supported the verdict.

2. The special assignments of error are not meritorious. The court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Gardner, J.

1. The evidence for the State, independently of the confession, tended to show that the house was set on fire, and connected the defendant therewith. A motive was shown, in that the defendant was being forced to give up the house burned; part of the lumber and material from the house burned was moved to the house to which the defendant had moved, on the night or early morning of the fire, and all the household goods of the defendant had been moved to the other house. The corpus delicti was sufficiently established, and the evidence supported the verdict.

2. The special assignments of error are not meritorious. The court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 S.E.2d 718, 63 Ga. App. 262, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-state-gactapp-1940.