Patillo v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Patillo v. State

28 S.E.2d 903, 70 Ga. App. 536, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 39

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 1, 1944

Docket30389, 30390.

StatusPublished

This text of 28 S.E.2d 903 (Patillo 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

Patillo v. State, 28 S.E.2d 903, 70 Ga. App. 536, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 39 (Ga. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The above-named defendants were convicted of burglary. The evidence in each case authorized the jury to find that certain fruits of the burglary were found in the recent possession of the defendants. Among said fruits were several farming tools. The defendants intro *537 duced no evidence, but made statements to the jury in which they admitted having possession of said tools since the burglary, but both stated they had borrowed them from their owner before his death, which occurred sometime before the burglary. However, the widow of the deceased owner of the tools and of the house burglarized testified positively that the stolen tools were in the house for some time after her husband’s death. The jury evidently believed her testimony, and rejected the statements of the defendants.

Decided February 1, 1944. Lester Dickson, for plaintiffs in error. Roy Leathers, solicitor-general, contra.

Under the facts of the case, the court did not err in charging the jury the law of conspiracy. In each case the denial of a new trial was not error.

Judgments affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The above-named defendants were convicted of burglary. The evidence in each case authorized the jury to find that certain fruits of the burglary were found in the recent possession of the defendants. Among said fruits were several farming tools. The defendants intro *537 duced no evidence, but made statements to the jury in which they admitted having possession of said tools since the burglary, but both stated they had borrowed them from their owner before his death, which occurred sometime before the burglary. However, the widow of the deceased owner of the tools and of the house burglarized testified positively that the stolen tools were in the house for some time after her husband’s death. The jury evidently believed her testimony, and rejected the statements of the defendants.

Decided February 1, 1944. Lester Dickson, for plaintiffs in error. Roy Leathers, solicitor-general, contra.

Under the facts of the case, the court did not err in charging the jury the law of conspiracy. In each case the denial of a new trial was not error.

Judgments affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 S.E.2d 903, 70 Ga. App. 536, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patillo-v-state-gactapp-1944.