Ray v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ray v. State

198 S.E. 827, 58 Ga. App. 444, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 306

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 29, 1938

Docket26956

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 198 S.E. 827 (Ray 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

Ray v. State, 198 S.E. 827, 58 Ga. App. 444, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 306 (Ga. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

Sheppard Bay and Bichard Bay were jointly indicted for simple larceny (hog-stealing). Sheppard Bay was first tried, and was convicted. The evidence connecting him with the offense was both direct and circumstantial, andi authorized a finding that he and Bichard Bay had entered into a conspiracy to steal, and did steal, the hog described in the indictment. It follows that the court did not err in instructing the jury on the law of conspiracy. The fact that another jury subsequently acquitted Bichard Bay on his trial upon the same indictment is no cause for a reversal of the judgment in this case. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and none of the grounds of the motion for new trial discloses reversible error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

Sheppard Bay and Bichard Bay were jointly indicted for simple larceny (hog-stealing). Sheppard Bay was first tried, and was convicted. The evidence connecting him with the offense was both direct and circumstantial, andi authorized a finding that he and Bichard Bay had entered into a conspiracy to steal, and did steal, the hog described in the indictment. It follows that the court did not err in instructing the jury on the law of conspiracy. The fact that another jury subsequently acquitted Bichard Bay on his trial upon the same indictment is no cause for a reversal of the judgment in this case. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and none of the grounds of the motion for new trial discloses reversible error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 S.E. 827, 58 Ga. App. 444, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ray-v-state-gactapp-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack