Carr v. State

• Decision Date: 15 January 1890
• Citation: 10 S.E. 626,84 Ga. 250
• Parties: CARR v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

10 S.E. 626

84 Ga. 250

CARR v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

January 15, 1890

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The indictment being for the larceny of money from a house, the bills stolen being two 20's and one 10, evidence tending to show that the accused, when arrested, had in his possession a small sum in change, and certain articles of property, was of slight relevancy, but its admission was not substantial error.

2. In criminal as well as civil cases, the jury should, if practicable, reconcile all the evidence, so as to impute perjury needlessly to none of the witnesses.

3. Instead of charging the jury, in general terms, that confessions are to be received with greatest caution, the court, after charging the jury properly as to their right to reject the confession entirely if not free and voluntary, may restrict the charge touching caution to dealing with it after ascertaining it to be in evidence, that is, after finding it to be free and voluntary.

4. Reasonable doubt is not the equivalent of any doubt. A correct charge on reasonable doubt, as to the whole case and all the evidence, is sufficient. It is not incumbent upon the court to carve the case or the evidence into different propositions, and apply the rule of reasonable doubt to one or more of them severally.

Error from superior court, Campbell county; HARRIS, Judge.

Thomas W. Latham, for plaintiff in error.

T. A Atkinson, Sol. Gen., for the State.

BLECKLEY C.J.

1. The evidence makes it certain that the offense of larceny from the house was committed by some one between the 5th and 13th of March, 1888. The money stolen amounted to $50, and consisted of two 20-dollar bills and one 10-dollar bill. The house was situated in Campbell county, and Carr, the plaintiff in error, was arrested in Atlanta, Fulton county on about the 22d of the same month. The court admitted evidence tending to show that at the time of his arrest he had in his possession a valise, 10 quarts of whisky, worth $5, a small amount of money in change, a railroad ticket to Douglasville, 2 pocket books, a bar-glass, a half-pint cup and a funnel. The objection that this evidence was irrelevant was overruled. Doubtless, it had no significance, further than to show that the accused had probably spent money in the purchase of some of these articles. True, he may have obtained the money which he laid out and which he had remaining honestly. But there was no evidence in the case showing that he had means before this offense was committed; the only testimony on that subject being that, if he had any money, the witness, who was his brother-in-law, did not know of it. There was very little weight in the fact that he had these various articles in his possession. But the evidence had some slight relevancy; and, as the court thought proper to admit it, we think its admission was not substantial error, if error at all.

2. In criminal as well as civil cases, it is the duty of the jury to reconcile all the evidence, and impute perjury needlessly to none of the witnesses. Stiles v. State, 57 Ga. 184; Rickerson v. State, 78 Ga. 15, 1 S.E. 178. The charge of the court on this subject was correct.

3. The charge...