West v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

West v. State

179 S.E. 206, 51 Ga. App. 7, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 513

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 8, 1935

Docket24546

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 179 S.E. 206 (West 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

West v. State, 179 S.E. 206, 51 Ga. App. 7, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 513 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The accused was found in the very recent possession of a stolen automobile. His explanation of that possession was substantially corroborated by two witnesses, but their testimony, on a most material point, to wit as to the hour when the defendant came into the possession of the car, was directly contradicted by two of the State’s witnesses. In view of such contradiction, and the evidence that the accused had been previously convicted in the superior court of Fulton county of the larcdny of another automobile, the jury was authorized to find that his explanation of his recent possession was not satisfactory and that he was guilty of the larceny of the automobile, as charged in the indictment. See Tate v. State, 47 Ga. App. 784 (171 S. E. 557).

2. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial, based upon the general grounds only.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The accused was found in the very recent possession of a stolen automobile. His explanation of that possession was substantially corroborated by two witnesses, but their testimony, on a most material point, to wit as to the hour when the defendant came into the possession of the car, was directly contradicted by two of the State’s witnesses. In view of such contradiction, and the evidence that the accused had been previously convicted in the superior court of Fulton county of the larcdny of another automobile, the jury was authorized to find that his explanation of his recent possession was not satisfactory and that he was guilty of the larceny of the automobile, as charged in the indictment. See Tate v. State, 47 Ga. App. 784 (171 S. E. 557).

2. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial, based upon the general grounds only.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.E. 206, 51 Ga. App. 7, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/west-v-state-gactapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack