Phillips v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Phillips v. State

199 S.E. 342, 58 Ga. App. 553, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 52

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 25, 1938

Docket27111

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 199 S.E. 342 (Phillips 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

Phillips v. State, 199 S.E. 342, 58 Ga. App. 553, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 52 (Ga. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Guerry, J.

1. The description of the stolen property (hogs) contained in the indictment was sufficiently definite under the provisions of our Code, § 26-2610. Brown v. State, 44 Ga. 300 (2) ; Rivers v. State, 57 Ga. 28; Alderman v. State, 57 Ga. 367; Harvey v. State, 121 Ga. 590 (49 S. E. [554]*554674); Geiger v. State, 21 Ga. App. 75 (93 S. E. 1027); Garrett v. State, 21 Ga. App. 801 (95 S. E. 301); Knight v. State, 25 Ga. App. 765 (105 S. E. 55) ; Hixon v. State, 35 Ga. App. 392 (133 S. E. 285); Bone v. State, 120 Ga. 867 (48 S. E. 356).

Decided October 25, 1938. P. Z. Geer, for plaintiff in error.

2. The charge of the judge, quoted below, was not error as withdrawing from the jury their right to believe the defendant’s statement in preference to the sworn testimony, it appearing that the judge had theretofore given in charge the law as respects a defendant’s statement. “In all criminal cases the jury are made judges both of the law and the facts. The law of which they are the judges, however, is that law given them in charge by the court, and applying that law to the facts which they gather from the evidence and from the defendant’s statement will arrive at a proper and correct verdict.” Rouse v. State, 136 Ga. 356 (5) (71 S. E. 667) ; Vaughn v. State, 88 Ga. 731 (4) (16 S. E. 64); McTyier v. State, 91 Ga. 254 (7) (18 S. E. 140); Merritt v. State, 152 Ga. 405 (4) (110 S. E. 160); Batchelor v. State, 18 Ga. App. 756 (2) (90 S. E. 487).

3. The prosecutor testified to the loss of the hogs described in the indictment, about the date therein alleged. The defendant who lived near the prosecutor sold the hogs to a party in Richland, Georgia, some distance away, where he hauled them in a truck. He gave a fictitious name to the party purchasing the hogs. He made a confession to a witness that he stole the hogs. His defense was that he purchased the hogs from a named negro. This negro testified that he did not sell the hogs to the defendant. The jury settled the conflicts in the evidence and the defendant’s statement, and found the defendant guilty. In this they were supported by the evidence. No error of law appears; and therefore the judgment is

Affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Guerry, J.

1. The description of the stolen property (hogs) contained in the indictment was sufficiently definite under the provisions of our Code, § 26-2610. Brown v. State, 44 Ga. 300 (2) ; Rivers v. State, 57 Ga. 28; Alderman v. State, 57 Ga. 367; Harvey v. State, 121 Ga. 590 (49 S. E. [554]*554674); Geiger v. State, 21 Ga. App. 75 (93 S. E. 1027); Garrett v. State, 21 Ga. App. 801 (95 S. E. 301); Knight v. State, 25 Ga. App. 765 (105 S. E. 55) ; Hixon v. State, 35 Ga. App. 392 (133 S. E. 285); Bone v. State, 120 Ga. 867 (48 S. E. 356).

Decided October 25, 1938. P. Z. Geer, for plaintiff in error.

2. The charge of the judge, quoted below, was not error as withdrawing from the jury their right to believe the defendant’s statement in preference to the sworn testimony, it appearing that the judge had theretofore given in charge the law as respects a defendant’s statement. “In all criminal cases the jury are made judges both of the law and the facts. The law of which they are the judges, however, is that law given them in charge by the court, and applying that law to the facts which they gather from the evidence and from the defendant’s statement will arrive at a proper and correct verdict.” Rouse v. State, 136 Ga. 356 (5) (71 S. E. 667) ; Vaughn v. State, 88 Ga. 731 (4) (16 S. E. 64); McTyier v. State, 91 Ga. 254 (7) (18 S. E. 140); Merritt v. State, 152 Ga. 405 (4) (110 S. E. 160); Batchelor v. State, 18 Ga. App. 756 (2) (90 S. E. 487).

3. The prosecutor testified to the loss of the hogs described in the indictment, about the date therein alleged. The defendant who lived near the prosecutor sold the hogs to a party in Richland, Georgia, some distance away, where he hauled them in a truck. He gave a fictitious name to the party purchasing the hogs. He made a confession to a witness that he stole the hogs. His defense was that he purchased the hogs from a named negro. This negro testified that he did not sell the hogs to the defendant. The jury settled the conflicts in the evidence and the defendant’s statement, and found the defendant guilty. In this they were supported by the evidence. No error of law appears; and therefore the judgment is

Affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 S.E. 342, 58 Ga. App. 553, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillips-v-state-gactapp-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack