Tinch v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Tinch v. State

74 S.E. 1003, 11 Ga. App. 158, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 305

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 22, 1912

Docket3759

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 74 S.E. 1003 (Tinch 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

Tinch v. State, 74 S.E. 1003, 11 Ga. App. 158, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 305 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, J.

1. The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the accusation. The defendant being charged with a misdemeanor, in that he received certain personal property knowing it to have been stolen, it was not necessary to allege that the real thief had been taken and convicted, or to state any reason why he had not been convicted. The offense of receiving stolen goods, under our statute, is a substantive offense, and an offender under this statute is not, in a strict technical sense, an accessory.

2. The court did not err in the rulings upon the admissibility of testimony, nor in the charge, and, while the jury would have been authorized to have acquitted the defendant, there was some evidence to warrant the conviction, and therefore this court can not hold that it was error to refuse a new trial. Judgment affirmed. Pottle, J., not presiding.

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

Russell, J.

1. The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the accusation. The defendant being charged with a misdemeanor, in that he received certain personal property knowing it to have been stolen, it was not necessary to allege that the real thief had been taken and convicted, or to state any reason why he had not been convicted. The offense of receiving stolen goods, under our statute, is a substantive offense, and an offender under this statute is not, in a strict technical sense, an accessory.

2. The court did not err in the rulings upon the admissibility of testimony, nor in the charge, and, while the jury would have been authorized to have acquitted the defendant, there was some evidence to warrant the conviction, and therefore this court can not hold that it was error to refuse a new trial. Judgment affirmed. Pottle, J., not presiding.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 S.E. 1003, 11 Ga. App. 158, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tinch-v-state-gactapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack