Stalvey v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Stalvey v. State

2 S.E.2d 762, 60 Ga. App. 41, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 495

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 29, 1939

Docket27458

StatusPublished

This text of 2 S.E.2d 762 (Stalvey 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

Stalvey v. State, 2 S.E.2d 762, 60 Ga. App. 41, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 495 (Ga. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The defendants were convicted of simple larceny (hog-stealing), and their motion for new -trial was overruled. ' Conceding that the evidence authorized the jury to find-that the hog taken by the defendants was the property of' the’ prosecutor, the evidence for the defendants showed that they took the hog under a fair claim of right (believing it -to be the property of the father of one of the defendants), and that evidence was uncontradicted by any direct evidence in the case; and the circumstantial evidence, if any, tending to show that the taking of the hog was [42]*42with, intent to steal, was insufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendants’ guilt. “In larceny the animus furandi must be not only alleged, but proved.” Musgrove v. State, 5 Ga. App. 467 (63 S. E. 538). The refusal to grant a new trial was error.

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The defendants were convicted of simple larceny (hog-stealing), and their motion for new -trial was overruled. ' Conceding that the evidence authorized the jury to find-that the hog taken by the defendants was the property of' the’ prosecutor, the evidence for the defendants showed that they took the hog under a fair claim of right (believing it -to be the property of the father of one of the defendants), and that evidence was uncontradicted by any direct evidence in the case; and the circumstantial evidence, if any, tending to show that the taking of the hog was [42]*42with, intent to steal, was insufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendants’ guilt. “In larceny the animus furandi must be not only alleged, but proved.” Musgrove v. State, 5 Ga. App. 467 (63 S. E. 538). The refusal to grant a new trial was error.

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 S.E.2d 762, 60 Ga. App. 41, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stalvey-v-state-gactapp-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack