Dempsey v. State

• Decision Date: 22 October 1935
• Docket Number: 25025.
• Citation: 182 S.E. 56,52 Ga.App. 35
• Parties: DEMPSEY v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

182 S.E. 56

52 Ga.App. 35

DEMPSEY v. STATE.

No. 25025.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, First Division

October 22, 1935

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Venue of charge of receiving stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen, is in county where goods are so received.

Venue of a crime is jurisdictional fact and must be proved as part of general case.

Where question as to failure to prove venue is specifically raised in motion for new trial and is argued in brief of plaintiff in error, and there is no proof of venue, reviewing court must hold that trial judge erred in overruling motion for new trial (Laws 1911, p. 150, § 2).

Error from Superior Court, Gordon County; C. C. Pittman, Judge.

W. E. Dempsey was convicted of receiving stolen goods, and he brings error.

Reversed.

Henry L. Barnett, of Calhoun, for plaintiff in error.

John C. Mitchell, Sol. Gen., of Dalton, for the State.

Syllabus OPINION.

GUERRY, Judge.

1. "The venue of a charge of receiving stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen, is the county where such goods are so received." Gamblin v. State, 33 Ga.App. 51, 125 S.E. 517; Licette v. State, 75 Ga.

253; Martin v. State, 33 Ga.App. 167, 125 S.E. 727.

2. The venue of a crime is a jurisdictional fact and must be proved as a part of the general case. Where the question as to failure to prove venue is specifically raised in the motion for new trial as provided by the act of 1911 (Ga. Laws 1911, p. 150, § 2), and is argued in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error, and there is no proof of venue, this court must hold that the trial judge erred in overruling the motion for new trial. The evidence for the state wholly fails to show that the defendant bought or received stolen property in Gordon county. It was therefore error to overrule the motion for new trial.

Judgment reversed.

BROYLES, C.J., and MacINTYRE, J., concur.