Perkins v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Perkins v. State

200 S.E. 812, 59 Ga. App. 335, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 9

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 17, 1939

Docket27288

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 200 S.E. 812 (Perkins 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

Perkins v. State, 200 S.E. 812, 59 Ga. App. 335, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 9 (Ga. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. “To sustain a' conviction [in a felony case] upon the testimony of an accomplice, there must be corroborating circumstances which, in themselves and independently of the testimony of the accomplice, directly connect the defendant with the crime, or lead to the inference that he is guilty.” (Italics ours.) Stokes v. State, 19 Ga. App. 235 (91 S. E. 271), and cit.

2. In the instant case the defendant was convicted of the offense of simple larceny (cattle stealing). The only evidence directly connecting him with the crime was the testimony of an accomplice, and there were no eorrobating circumstances which, “in themselves and independently of the testimony of the accomplice, directly” connected him with the crime or led to the inference that he was guilty. It follows that the verdict was [336]*336contrary to law and the evidence, and that the refusal to grant a new trial was error.

Decided January 17, 1939. Williams & Freeman, for plaintiff in error. Frank B. Willingham, solicitor-general, contra.

Judgment reversed.

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. “To sustain a' conviction [in a felony case] upon the testimony of an accomplice, there must be corroborating circumstances which, in themselves and independently of the testimony of the accomplice, directly connect the defendant with the crime, or lead to the inference that he is guilty.” (Italics ours.) Stokes v. State, 19 Ga. App. 235 (91 S. E. 271), and cit.

2. In the instant case the defendant was convicted of the offense of simple larceny (cattle stealing). The only evidence directly connecting him with the crime was the testimony of an accomplice, and there were no eorrobating circumstances which, “in themselves and independently of the testimony of the accomplice, directly” connected him with the crime or led to the inference that he was guilty. It follows that the verdict was [336]*336contrary to law and the evidence, and that the refusal to grant a new trial was error.

Decided January 17, 1939. Williams & Freeman, for plaintiff in error. Frank B. Willingham, solicitor-general, contra.

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur:

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 S.E. 812, 59 Ga. App. 335, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perkins-v-state-gactapp-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack