Wood v. State
74 S.E. 1100, 11 Ga. App. 242, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 348
Opinion
1. While in criminal cases the question of intent is one entirely for the jury, yet where, from all of the facts and circumstances in the case, an intent to defraud is not reasonably deducible, there can be no conviction of an offense of which an intent to defraud is necessarily an essential element.
2. Applying to the facts of the present case the principle above stated, the conviction of the accused was not authorized, and a new trial should have been granted. Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Wood v. State, 74 S.E. 1100, 11 Ga. App. 242, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 348 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).
74 S.E. 1100 (Wood v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Partain v. State
199 S.E.2d 549 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1973)
Coffee v. State
133 S.E.2d 590 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1963)
Nickles v. State
80 S.E.2d 97 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1954)
Curtis v. State
35 S.E.2d 310 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1945)
McJenkin v. State
7 S.E.2d 812 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1940)