Tremble v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Tremble v. State

99 S.E. 544, 24 Ga. App. 26, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 389

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 13, 1919

Docket10502

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 99 S.E. 544 (Tremble 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

Tremble v. State, 99 S.E. 544, 24 Ga. App. 26, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 389 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. Plaintiff in error was convicted of burglary. 'In White v. State, 51 Ga. 285, the headnote is as follows: “If one enter a house with intent to commit a felony, but the entering is through an open door without any breaking, actual or constructive, the offense is not burglary; nor, under our Code, § 4386 [§ 146 of the Penal Code of 1910], is it a sufficient ‘breaking and entering into,’ that having entered with intent to commit a felony, he unbolts a door to get out.” The prosecutor in the instant case swore: “Some one went in my store when I was gone to supper; they went in through the window of my store, where a glass 12 by 16 was broken out 4 feet from the door, or he slipped in the store before I closed up and went to supper.” Applying the above-stated rule of law to the evidence just quoted, it will be readily seen that a verdict for burglary was unauthorized, and is without evidence to support it. See also Williams v. State, 52 Ga. 581; Strickland v. State, 12 Ga. App. 640 (3) (70 S. E. 1070).

[27]*272. In view of the foregoing ruling, it is unnecessary to consider the other assignments of error.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. Plaintiff in error was convicted of burglary. 'In White v. State, 51 Ga. 285, the headnote is as follows: “If one enter a house with intent to commit a felony, but the entering is through an open door without any breaking, actual or constructive, the offense is not burglary; nor, under our Code, § 4386 [§ 146 of the Penal Code of 1910], is it a sufficient ‘breaking and entering into,’ that having entered with intent to commit a felony, he unbolts a door to get out.” The prosecutor in the instant case swore: “Some one went in my store when I was gone to supper; they went in through the window of my store, where a glass 12 by 16 was broken out 4 feet from the door, or he slipped in the store before I closed up and went to supper.” Applying the above-stated rule of law to the evidence just quoted, it will be readily seen that a verdict for burglary was unauthorized, and is without evidence to support it. See also Williams v. State, 52 Ga. 581; Strickland v. State, 12 Ga. App. 640 (3) (70 S. E. 1070).

[27]*272. In view of the foregoing ruling, it is unnecessary to consider the other assignments of error.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 S.E. 544, 24 Ga. App. 26, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tremble-v-state-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack