Weaver v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Weaver v. State

126 S.E.2d 538, 106 Ga. App. 202, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 668

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 21, 1962

Docket39550

StatusPublished

This text of 126 S.E.2d 538 (Weaver 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

Weaver v. State, 126 S.E.2d 538, 106 Ga. App. 202, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 668 (Ga. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

1. “A recent possession of stolen goods, not satisfactorily explained, is an inference of guilt (Chambers v. State, 68 Ga. App. 338 (3), 23 SE2d 545; Hunt v. State, 64 Ga. App. 320, 13 SE2d 117; Lundy v. State, 71 Ga. 360), on a prosecution for burglary.” Craig v. State, 91 Ga. App. 418 (1) (85 SE2d 777).

2. Various items were allegedly stolen in the burglary, and among such items was a pair of trousers found on the defendant’s bed at the time he was arrested, and while the defendant sought to explain possession of other items identified as having been a part of the property stolen, the jury was not bound to accept such explanation and no explanation was made with reference to the pair of trousers. The verdict was authorized by the evidence and the trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial on the usual general grounds only.

Judgment affirmed.

Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.

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

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

1. “A recent possession of stolen goods, not satisfactorily explained, is an inference of guilt (Chambers v. State, 68 Ga. App. 338 (3), 23 SE2d 545; Hunt v. State, 64 Ga. App. 320, 13 SE2d 117; Lundy v. State, 71 Ga. 360), on a prosecution for burglary.” Craig v. State, 91 Ga. App. 418 (1) (85 SE2d 777).

2. Various items were allegedly stolen in the burglary, and among such items was a pair of trousers found on the defendant’s bed at the time he was arrested, and while the defendant sought to explain possession of other items identified as having been a part of the property stolen, the jury was not bound to accept such explanation and no explanation was made with reference to the pair of trousers. The verdict was authorized by the evidence and the trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial on the usual general grounds only.

Judgment affirmed.

Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 S.E.2d 538, 106 Ga. App. 202, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weaver-v-state-gactapp-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack