Blocker v. State
| Decision Date | 15 February 1938 |
| Docket Number | 26607. |
| Citation | 195 S.E. 451,57 Ga.App. 330 |
| Parties | BLOCKER v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Discrepancies between allegations of indictment for larceny of hogs and proof as to description of most of hogs did not constitute a fatal variance, where description of one hog in the indictment and in the evidence was identical.
A charge that finding of stolen property in recent possession of person failing to satisfactorily explain his possession raised presumption of guilt was not reversible error notwithstanding that charge was on borderland of being erroneous and would have been erroneous if the judge had charged that the presumption was one of law.
The failure to charge specifically on defense raised solely by defendant's statement to jury was not error where defendant did not request charge and court properly charged on the defendant's statement, on reasonable doubt, on presumption of innocence and weight to be given to circumstantial evidence.
The refusal to grant new trial to defendant convicted of larceny of hogs was not error where conviction was amply authorized by the evidence.
Error from Superior Court, Miller County; C. W. Worrill, Judge.
John Blocker was convicted of the simple larceny of hogs, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
F. E Strickland, of Donalsonville, for plaintiff in error.
R. A Patterson, Sol. Gen., of Cuthbert, and Hooper & Hooper, of Atlanta, for the State.
Syllabus OPINION.
1. The defendant was convicted of simple larceny (hog stealing). He was charged in the indictment with stealing eleven hogs. There were some discrepancies between the allegations of the indictment and the proof as to the description of most of the hogs; but as to one of the hogs the description in the indictment and in the evidence was identical. It follows that there was no fatal variance between the allegations of the indictment and the proof, since the defendant would be guilty of the offense charged if he stole only the hog which was properly described; and the evidence authorized a finding that he was guilty of stealing that particular hog. See, in this connection, Finley v. State, 26 Ga.App. 9, 10, 105 S.E. 497; Holmes v. State, 20 Ga.App. 181, 92 S.E. 963.
2. The court did not commit reversible error in charging that where stolen property is found in the recent possession of a person, and he fails to make a satisfactory explanation of his possession, a presumption of his guilt is raised. It would have been reversible error (unless the verdict had been demanded by the evidence), if the judge had charged that the presumption was one of law. And while the charge as given "is on the borderland of being erroneous," Morris v. State, 47 Ga.App. 792, 793, 171 S.E. 555, 556, it does not require a reversal of the judgment in this case.
3. The court, having properly charged on the defendant's statement, on reasonable doubt, on the presumption of innocence, and on the weight to be given to...
To continue reading
Request your trial