Simpkins v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Simpkins v. State

181 S.E. 232, 51 Ga. App. 665, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 436

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedAugust 27, 1935

Docket25023

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 181 S.E. 232 (Simpkins 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

Simpkins v. State, 181 S.E. 232, 51 Ga. App. 665, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 436 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The defendant was convicted of the offense of robbery; and he avers, in special ground 1 of his motion for new trial, that the State failed to prove the value of the property alleged to have been stolen. The indictment charged that the accused obtained, as the fruits of the robbery, “forty-nine & 12/100 dollars in money of the value of $49.12.” The brief of the evidence shows that the prosecuting witness testified that the accused obtained “$49.12” as the fruits of the robbery, and this court knows judicially that the witness, who was testifying orally, said “forty-nine dollars and twelve cents,” and that the court reporter wrote it down as “$49.12.” This court will also take judicial cognizance of the well-known fact “that the word ‘dollar’ is the money unit of the United States of the value of one hundred cents.” McDonald v. State, 2 Ga. App. 633 (58 S. E. 1067). It follows that the ground is without merit.

2. Special ground 2 of the motion is based upon the exclusion of certain documentary evidence; but the ground can not be considered by this court, since the evidence is not set forth in the ground or attached thereto as an exhibit. Danner v. Johns, 147 Ga. 667 (95 S. E. 233).

3. The remaining special ground of the motion is expressly abandoned in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error; and the verdict is amply authorized by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur. Frank A. Bowers, W. Al Jennings, for plaintiff in error. John A. Boykin, solicüor-general, J. W. LeCraw, John H. Hudson, contra.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The defendant was convicted of the offense of robbery; and he avers, in special ground 1 of his motion for new trial, that the State failed to prove the value of the property alleged to have been stolen. The indictment charged that the accused obtained, as the fruits of the robbery, “forty-nine & 12/100 dollars in money of the value of $49.12.” The brief of the evidence shows that the prosecuting witness testified that the accused obtained “$49.12” as the fruits of the robbery, and this court knows judicially that the witness, who was testifying orally, said “forty-nine dollars and twelve cents,” and that the court reporter wrote it down as “$49.12.” This court will also take judicial cognizance of the well-known fact “that the word ‘dollar’ is the money unit of the United States of the value of one hundred cents.” McDonald v. State, 2 Ga. App. 633 (58 S. E. 1067). It follows that the ground is without merit.

2. Special ground 2 of the motion is based upon the exclusion of certain documentary evidence; but the ground can not be considered by this court, since the evidence is not set forth in the ground or attached thereto as an exhibit. Danner v. Johns, 147 Ga. 667 (95 S. E. 233).

3. The remaining special ground of the motion is expressly abandoned in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error; and the verdict is amply authorized by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur. Frank A. Bowers, W. Al Jennings, for plaintiff in error. John A. Boykin, solicüor-general, J. W. LeCraw, John H. Hudson, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 S.E. 232, 51 Ga. App. 665, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simpkins-v-state-gactapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack