Parker v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Parker v. State

191 S.E. 924, 56 Ga. App. 14, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 268

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 17, 1937

Docket26295

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 191 S.E. 924 (Parker 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

Parker v. State, 191 S.E. 924, 56 Ga. App. 14, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 268 (Ga. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. In view of the counter-showing submitted by the State, the court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the ground of the motion for new trial based on alleged newly discovered evidence.

2. The defendant was convicted of burglary.. The corpus delicti was sufficiently shown. A witness for the State testified, without objection, that the defendant, after his arrest, told him that he (the defendant) and another negro entered the store in question by crawling through the skylight on the roof, and that their intention was to steal money which they believed to be in the store. The evidence also authorized the jury to find that the skylight was closed, and that the defendant or his accomplice removed the glass therefrom and then crawled through the hole into the store. The verdict was authorized by the evidence; and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error for any reason assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. In view of the counter-showing submitted by the State, the court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the ground of the motion for new trial based on alleged newly discovered evidence.

2. The defendant was convicted of burglary.. The corpus delicti was sufficiently shown. A witness for the State testified, without objection, that the defendant, after his arrest, told him that he (the defendant) and another negro entered the store in question by crawling through the skylight on the roof, and that their intention was to steal money which they believed to be in the store. The evidence also authorized the jury to find that the skylight was closed, and that the defendant or his accomplice removed the glass therefrom and then crawled through the hole into the store. The verdict was authorized by the evidence; and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error for any reason assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 S.E. 924, 56 Ga. App. 14, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-state-gactapp-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack