Pinkard v. State

30 Ga. 757
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJune 15, 1860
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 30 Ga. 757 (Pinkard 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
Pinkard v. State, 30 Ga. 757 (Ga. 1860).

Opinion

[759]*759 By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.,

delivering the opinion.

We express no opinion as to the refusal of the Court to allow defendant’s counsel to ask the witness Heggy, who gave him the information that there were stolen negroes in a certain place in town. If the defendant wished to show that he himself put the officer on the pursuit of this property, and thus establish his innocence, or want of participation in the larceny, it was competent, unquestionably, to interrogate him to that point.

2. The Court was right in protecting Knowles from being compelled, contrary to the common law as well as the constitution of the country, from accusing himself. But then the Court should have ruled out the whole of the conversation in which the witness participated.

3. It is certainly true, that if the defendant had no participation in the theft until after the negroes were stolen, he was an accessory after the fact only. If, however, the felony was concocted between the parties previously, he would, in that case, be a principal. One need not be present when a crime is committed to constitute him a principal.

4. We think the .fourth charge should have been given. The law as well as the gospel allows a place of repentance. And, notwithstanding the accused may at one time have agreed to engage in this crime, yet, if he afterwards changed his mind and abandoned that intention, he is not guilty. And there was proof in that case to warrant a charge to that effect.

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

Related

Elliott v. State
824 S.E.2d 265 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2019)
Fair v. State
231 S.E.2d 1 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)
Smith v. State
168 S.E.2d 587 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1969)
Pilcher v. State
92 S.E.2d 318 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1956)
Chambers v. State
22 S.E.2d 487 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)
State v. Peterson
4 N.W.2d 826 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1942)
State v. Feltovic
147 A. 801 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1929)
Commonwealth v. Dorris
8 Pa. D. & C. 210 (Philadelphia County Court of Oyer and Terminer, 1926)
Danzley v. State
102 S.E. 915 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1920)
Hays v. State
84 S.E. 497 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1915)
Lingerfelt v. State
53 S.E. 803 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1906)
McElhannon v. State
26 S.E. 501 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1896)
Williams v. State
60 Ga. 367 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1878)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 Ga. 757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pinkard-v-state-ga-1860.