Dawson v. State, 37547
| Decision Date | 13 February 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 37547,37547,2 |
| Citation | 107 S.E.2d 847,99 Ga.App. 115 |
| Parties | H. S. DAWSON v. STATE. . Division |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Francis Y. Fife, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Paul Webb, Sol. Gen., Frank S. French, Eugene L. Tiller, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. Although goods burglarized from a store building have no particular marks for identification, the coincidence of their correspondence in quantity, variety, and brand with those found in the defendant's recent possession may, with other evidence, constitute sufficient identification of the stolen property. Jordan v. State, 119 Ga. 443(2), 46 S.E. 679.
2. Duke v. State, 95 Ga.App. 620, 98 S.E.2d 599, 600.
3. 'In an indictment for larceny or for burglary the ownership of personal property may be laid in the person having actual lawful possession of the property, although he may be holding it merely as the agent or bailee of another.' Bennett v. State, 28 Ga.App. 235, 110 S.E. 756.
4. The defendant H. S. Dawson was indicted with one Haney for the burglary of the place of business of Howard Robins, the indictment alleging that three television sets, described by size and brand name, 4 Fanfare wireless inter-com sets, 1 television and radio serviceman's kit and 1 radio were stolen. A breaking and entry were proved. Two of the inter-com sets were recovered from the possession of Haney and the remainder of the property from the possession of the defendant. The prosecutor identified his serviceman's kit positively, and as to the television sets stated that they had been left with him for repair, that he did not have the serial numbers but believed them to be the articles stolen from his store; that they looked exactly like them; that one of the T. V. sets had 'a different colored speaker cloth than found on T. V. sets and I believe I could identify that T. V. set by the cloth being on there.' The property was stolen between 11 p. m. and 9 a. m. A witness saw both the defendant and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ponthier, 10183
...848 (1958); State v. Gates, 246 Iowa 344, 67 N.W.2d 579 (1954); People v. Wing, 23 Cal.App. 50, 137 Pac. 47 (1913); Dawson v. State, 99 Ga.App. 115, 107 S.E.2d 847 (1959). This court in State v. Love, 76 Idaho 378, 283 P.2d 925 (1955), affirmed a burglary conviction where it was shown that ......
-
Rutledge v. State, 53889
...in appellant's possession was "exactly like" the Timex watch taken from his store. This was sufficient identification. Dawson v. State, 99 Ga.App. 115, 107 S.E.2d 847. "(T)he crime of burglary was made out regardless of what other articles may or may not have been taken. (Cits.)" Hudson v. ......
-
Watson v. State, 61806
... ... We have studied the transcript and find that the items in the photograph were adequately identified. See Dawson v. State, 99 Ga.App. 115 (1), 107 S.E.2d 847 ... (1959); Gowder v. State, 151 Ga.App. 339, 259 S.E.2d 726 (1979). Appellant's "best evidence" ... ...
-
Richardson v. State
...8 Ga.App. 205, 68 S.E. 863; Steele v. State, 46 Ga.App. 674, 168 S.E. 908; Yawn v. State, 94 Ga.App. 400, 94 S.E.2d 769; Dawson v. State, 99 Ga.App. 115, 107 S.E.2d 847. It was not error to admit a photograph of the items in evidence over the objection that they had not been properly identi......