Home/Supreme Court of Georgia/Pat v. State

Pat v. State

42 S.E. 389, 116 Ga. 92, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 35
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedAugust 7, 1902
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 42 S.E. 389 (Pat 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
Pat v. State, 42 S.E. 389, 116 Ga. 92, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 35 (Ga. 1902).

Opinion

Eish, J.

Fannie Pat was indicted for the offense of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. Upon the trial she pleaded' autrefois acquit, in that she had, at a former term of the court, [93]*93been tried and acquitted of the offense of burglary, and that the facts in the burglary case were the same as those in the case upon trial, the two cases involving the same transaction. The plea was overruled, and upon the trial the accused was found guilty. She made a motion for a new trial, which was denied; whereupon she excepted to the judgment refusing the new trial, and also to the overruling of the plea of autrefois acquit.

1. The offense of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen is not a necessary element in, and does not constitute an essential part of, the offense of burglary. The two offenses are separate and distinct, and a verdict of guilty of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen could not legally be found under an indictment for burglary. Mangham v. State, 87 Ga. 549. Therefore the acquittal of the accused upon the indictment for burglary could not support a plea of autrefois acquit to the indictment for receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. See Bell v. State, 103 Ga. 397; Smith v. State, 105 Ga. 724.

2. Complaint was made of a charge of. the court to the effect that if the accused did not know that the goods were stolen at the time she received them, but knew after she received them that they were stolen, and then secreted them, the jury would be authorized to convict her. We think this charge was erroneous. The gist of the offense of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen is the felonious knowledge that the goods were stolen; and to constitute the offense, the person receiving the goods must have this knowledge at the time of receiving them. State v. Caveness, 78 N. C. 484; May v. People, 60 Ill. 119.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concurring, except Lewis, J., absent.

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

Related

Middleton v. State
846 S.E.2d 73 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2020)
Bonner v. the State
794 S.E.2d 186 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2016)
Johnson v. State
219 S.E.2d 25 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1975)
Butler v. State
203 S.E.2d 558 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1973)
Shelly v. State
131 S.E.2d 135 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1963)
Rowland v. State
85 S.E.2d 522 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1954)
Webb v. State
23 S.E.2d 578 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
Chambers v. State
22 S.E.2d 487 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)
Harris v. State
193 Ga. 109 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1941)
Rogers v. State
115 S.E. 668 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
State v. Broderick
191 Iowa 717 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1921)
Gully v. State
42 S.E. 790 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
42 S.E. 389, 116 Ga. 92, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pat-v-state-ga-1902.