Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Youngblood v. State

Youngblood v. State

150 S.E. 457, 40 Ga. App. 514, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 619
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedNovember 12, 1929
Docket20039
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 150 S.E. 457 (Youngblood 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
Youngblood v. State, 150 S.E. 457, 40 Ga. App. 514, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 619 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

The indictment alleges that in Bacon county, on September 3, 1927, the accused and others “did then and there unlawfully and with force and arms break and enter a railroad freight-car marked Frisco No. 130476, same being in the custody and control of Atlanta, Birmingham and Coast Bailroad Company, with intent to steal goods.” The trial resulted in the conviction of the defendant. He filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and he excepted. The motion alleges that a new trial should be granted because the indictment alleged that the car from which the goods were alleged to have been stolen was marked “Frisco No. 130476;” that this was a material allegation, and that the evidence failed to show that the word “Frisco” was on said car. The Supreme Court in Fulford v. State, 50 Ga. 591, 593, quoting from Bishop’s Criminal Procedure, §§ 234, 235, said: “If the indictment sets out the offense as having been done in a particular way, the proof must show it so, or there will be a variance, and where there is a necessary allegation which can not be rejected, yet the pleader makes it unnecessarily minute in the way of description, the proof must satisfy the description as well as the main part, since the one is essential to the identity of the other.” ' The word “Frisco” might have been left out of the indictment, but, having been inserted therein, it became “descriptive of the identity of that which is legally essential to the claim or charge,” and can not be rejected as surplusage, and must be proved. Fulford v. State, supra. There is no evidence to support this part of the indictment. Hightower v. State, 39 Ga. App. 674, 675 (148 S. E. 300); Southern Express Co. v. State, 23 Ga. App. 67 (2), 70 (97 S. E. 550), and cit.

The court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Related

Marchman v. THE STATE
198 S.E.2d 425 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1973)
Farr v. State
192 S.E.2d 500 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1972)
Law v. State
173 S.E.2d 98 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1970)
Allen v. State
128 S.E.2d 549 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1962)
State v. McGraw
85 S.E.2d 849 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1955)
Isenhower v. State
77 S.E.2d 834 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)
Loomis v. Edwards
56 S.E.2d 183 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1949)
Kryder v. State
41 S.E.2d 824 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1947)
Musgrove v. State
23 S.E.2d 201 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
Smith v. State
195 S.E. 144 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1938)
Wright v. State
182 S.E. 862 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Martin v. State
158 S.E. 635 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
150 S.E. 457, 40 Ga. App. 514, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/youngblood-v-state-gactapp-1929.