Selvidge v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Selvidge v. State

319 S.E.2d 136, 170 Ga. App. 697, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 1997

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 13, 1984

Docket64723

StatusPublished

This text of 319 S.E.2d 136 (Selvidge 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

Selvidge v. State, 319 S.E.2d 136, 170 Ga. App. 697, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 1997 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Birdsong, Judge.

Our judgment in Selvidge v. State, 166 Ga. App. 80 (303 SE2d 294) has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Selvidge v. State, 252 Ga. 243 (313 SE2d 84). However, that portion of our opinion holding that a thief and a receiver of the goods stolen are not considered to be accomplices thus obviating any necessity for the corroboration of an accomplice’s testimony has been overruled, as have been the earlier decisions to that effect.

We hereby adopt the reasoning and judgment of the Supreme Court holding that where a thief and a receiver of stolen property have acted pursuant to a common criminal enterprise, they are considered to be accomplices within the meaning of OCGA § 24-4-8 and the accomplice’s testimony requires some corroboration.

For the reasons stated in our original opinion as modified by the Supreme Court, the judgment of conviction and sentence in this case are affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray, C. J., Deen, P. J., Quillian, P. J., Banke, P. J., Carley, Sognier, and Pope, JJ., concur. Benham, [698]*698 J., not participating. Decided April 13, 1984.. G. Alan Blackburn, for appellant. John T. Strauss, District Attorney, Steven A. Hathorn, Jim Morgan, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.

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