Williams v. State

161 S.E. 277, 44 Ga. App. 271, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 666
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedNovember 11, 1931
Docket21688
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 161 S.E. 277 (Williams 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
Williams v. State, 161 S.E. 277, 44 Ga. App. 271, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 666 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The special grounds of the motion for a new trial, not having been argued or referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, are treated as abandoned.

2. The defendant was charged with the larceny of an automobile. = Hpon his trial a witness for the State (who testified that he had previously pleaded guilty to stealing the automobile in question) swore, that on the night the car was stolen, and prior to the stealing thereof, he and the defendant and a third person met together and “made up the plot” to steal the ear, and that in pursuance of the plot he (the witness) and the third person stole the car and drove it to the drug-store where the defendant worked; that soon afterwards the defendant furnished money to buy gas for the car, and that he (the witness), the defendant, and the third person went for a ride in the car. In corroboration of the testimony of the accomplice, a policeman testified that on the night the automobile was stolen, and after the larceny, he saw the defendant [272]*272driving the stolen automobile, and that, when pursued by the witness, he (the defendant) jumped from the car and ran away. This evidence was sufficient corroboration of the accomplice’s testimony. There was evidence adduced which tended to establish the defendant’s innocence and which would have authorized his acquittal of the offense charged. However, it is evident from their verdict that the jury exercised their right to believe that part of the evidence which authorized his conviction; and, the verdict having been approved by the trial judge and no error of law appearing, this court has no authority to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Lake and BloodworUi, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Wiggins v. State
55 S.E.2d 842 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
161 S.E. 277, 44 Ga. App. 271, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-state-gactapp-1931.