Gravitt,v,state.
| Decision Date | 11 March 1902 |
| Citation | 40 S.E. 1003,114 Ga. 841 |
| Parties | GRAVITT v STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
BURGLARY—EVIDENCE—POSSESSION OF STOLEN GOODS.
1. In the trial of an indictment for burglary, where a breaking and larceny have been shown, recent possession of the stolen property by the accused, where such possession is not satisfactorily explained, is a circumstance sufficient to authorize the jury to find that the accused is guilty as charged; but it does not create a presumption of law against the accused, and is not, of itself, necessarily proof of his guilt.
2. A conviction of burglary is not sustained by evidence which, taken most strongly against the accused, would only lead to the conclusion that he has been guilty of receiving stolen goods.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from superior court, Hall county; J. B. Estes, Judge.
Bige Gravitt was convicted of burglary, and brings error. Reversed.
H. H. Dean, for plaintiff in error.
W. A. Charters, Sol. Gen., for the State.
The accused was tried in the superior court of Hall county upon an indictment charging him with burglary, and was convicted. He made a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and he excepted.
I. The court charged the jury, in effect, that where a breaking and larceny have been shown, recent possession of the stolen property by one accused of the burglary, not explained to the satisfaction of the jury, would be proof of his guilt; that while possession satisfactorily explained would create no presumption against the accused, "if he fails to account for it to the satisfaction of the jury, the law presumes he is the guilty party." This charge states too broadly the rule applicable to recent possession of stolen property, and was error manifestly prejudicial to the accused. It Is true, as has been repeatedly ruled by this court that such possession, unexplained, or not satisfactorily explained, is a very strong circumstance, up-on which the Jury will he authorized to infer the guilt of the accused. But to charge that this circumstance creates a presumption of law that the one so found in possession of stolen property is guilty of the theft thereof, and is of itself proof of guilt is to compel the jury to do that which they are merely permitted by law to do. The presumption is one of fact and not of law. There Is nothing in what is here laid down which conflicts with the case of Jones v. State, 105 Ga. 650, 31 S. E. 575, for while it is there stated, as a general rule, that the recent,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marcum v. Com.
...evidence is strictly a matter for the jury, the trial court should not instruct on the question. R.C.L. p. 72; Gravitt v. State, 114 Ga. 841, 40 S.E. 1003, 88 Am.St.Rep. 63; Lehman v. State, 18 Tex.App. 174, 51 Am.Rep. 298. It follows that instruction No. 3 should not have been Botnick was ......
-
Williamson v. State
...it does not create a presumption of law against the accused, and it is not of itself necessarily proof of his guilt." Gravitt v. State, 114 Ga. 841, 40 S.E. 1003 (1902). "(T)he greatest length to which the rule is carried out is that it is sufficient to warrant the conviction of the accused......
-
Byrd v. Hopper
...permits the jury to infer that the accused committed the theft. See Aiken v. State, 226 Ga. 840(2), 178 S.E.2d 202; Gravitt v. State, 114 Ga. 841, 40 S.E. 1003; Davis v. State, 76 Ga. 16, 17; Lundy v. State, 71 Ga. 360, 361; Daniel v. State, 65 Ga. 199, 200. It should be emphasized that the......
-
Byrd v. Hopper
...similar to it, have been widely criticized by the Georgia courts. Byrd v. Hopper, 234 Ga. 248, 215 S.E.2d 251 (1975); Gravitt v. State, 114 Ga. 841, 40 S.E. 1003 (1902); Gaskin v. State, 119 Ga.App. 593, 595, 168 S.E.2d 183 (1969) (Pannell, J., concurring); Barber v. State, 61 Ga.App. 578, ......