Stewart v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Stewart v. State

144 S.E.2d 561, 112 Ga. App. 193, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 641

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 8, 1965

Docket41388

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 144 S.E.2d 561 (Stewart 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

Stewart v. State, 144 S.E.2d 561, 112 Ga. App. 193, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 641 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Eberhardt, Judge.

The accused in special ground 4 of his amended motion for new trial, contends that the court erred in “allowing the solicitor to reopen the evidence after both sides had closed, and produce additional testimony” as to value of the property. This was a matter of discretion on the part of the court, which does not appear to have been abused. Guthas v. State, 54 Ga. App. 217 (3) (187 SE 847); Smith v. State, 15 Ga. App. 713 (84 SE 159).

Special ground 5 of the amended motion “contends that the court erred in failing to fully charge the jury as to the law of intent to steal. . .” Included in the charge to the jury was the following: “Now I charge you, Gentlemen of the Jury, that a crime or misdemeanor shall consist in a violation of a public law, in the commission of which there shall be a union or joint operation of act and intention. . . Intention shall be manifested by the circumstances connected with the perpetration of the offense, and the sound mind and discretion of the person accused. . . Simple theft or larceny is the wrongful and fraudulent taking and carrying away, by any person of the personal goods of another with the intent to steal the same.” No further charge as to intent to steal was required in the absence of a request. Hill v. State, 45 Ga. App. 571 (165 SE 482).

The trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial on the general grounds as the State’s case did not meet the test as set out in Code § 38-109. See Goss v. State, 82 Ga. App. 533, 534 (61 SE2d 570); Carr v. State, 72 Ga. App. 8, 11 (32 SE2d 914).

Judgment reversed.

Nichols, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.

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

Eberhardt, Judge.

The accused in special ground 4 of his amended motion for new trial, contends that the court erred in “allowing the solicitor to reopen the evidence after both sides had closed, and produce additional testimony” as to value of the property. This was a matter of discretion on the part of the court, which does not appear to have been abused. Guthas v. State, 54 Ga. App. 217 (3) (187 SE 847); Smith v. State, 15 Ga. App. 713 (84 SE 159).

Special ground 5 of the amended motion “contends that the court erred in failing to fully charge the jury as to the law of intent to steal. . .” Included in the charge to the jury was the following: “Now I charge you, Gentlemen of the Jury, that a crime or misdemeanor shall consist in a violation of a public law, in the commission of which there shall be a union or joint operation of act and intention. . . Intention shall be manifested by the circumstances connected with the perpetration of the offense, and the sound mind and discretion of the person accused. . . Simple theft or larceny is the wrongful and fraudulent taking and carrying away, by any person of the personal goods of another with the intent to steal the same.” No further charge as to intent to steal was required in the absence of a request. Hill v. State, 45 Ga. App. 571 (165 SE 482).

The trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial on the general grounds as the State’s case did not meet the test as set out in Code § 38-109. See Goss v. State, 82 Ga. App. 533, 534 (61 SE2d 570); Carr v. State, 72 Ga. App. 8, 11 (32 SE2d 914).

Judgment reversed.

Nichols, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 S.E.2d 561, 112 Ga. App. 193, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-state-gactapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack