Handley v. State
| Decision Date | 04 June 1902 |
| Citation | 115 Ga. 584,41 S.E. 992 |
| Parties | HANDLEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
CRIMINAL LAW—CONSPIRACY—EVIDENCE.
The rule that, when individuals associate themselves in an unlawful enterprise, any act done in pursuance of the conspiracy by one of the conspirators is, in legal contemplation, the act of all, is subject to the qualification that each is responsible for the acts of the others only so far as such acts are naturally or necessarily done pursuant to, or in furtherance of, the conspiracy. (Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from superior court, Wilcox county; D. M. Roberts, Judge.
G. W. Handley was convicted of disorderly conduct, and brings error. Reversed.
Hal Lawson, for plaintiff in error.
John F. De Lacy, Sol. Gen., for the State.
The accused was placed on
trial, charged with the offense of using obscene and vulgar language in the presence of a female, and was convicted. He complains that the court erred in refusing to grant him a new trial.
It appears from the evidence that the accused, his son, and others went near the house of the prosecutor for the purpose of assisting his daughter to run away and marry the son of the accused, and that having waited the agreed time at the appointed place for the daughter of the prosecutor to appear, and she not having kept the engagement, the accused and the others started along the public road which passed the prosecutor's house; and while in front of the house the language set forth in the indictment was heard by the wife of the prosecutor, as well as by the prosecutor himself, both of whom testified that they recognized the voice of the accused. The accused, in his statement, denied having used the language alleged, or any similar language, on the occasion in question. The court charged the jury, in substance, that if the accused and others were engaged in a common design, and while they were acting in furtherance of that design any one of them used substantially the words alleged in the indictment in the presence of the wife of the prosecutor, without provocation, the accused would be guilty, notwithstanding he may not have used the words himself. Complaint is made that this charge was erroneous, for the reason that it does not state that the common design must have been unlawful, and for the further reason that, even if the common intent was unlawful, thea act charged in the indictment was not one that was in furtherance of the common unlawful purpose. It does not appear from the record what was the age of the prosecutor's daughter, and therefore it cannot be determined whether the accused and those with whom he was associated for the purpose of enabling her to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Park v. Huff
...267(1)(a), 134 S.E. 36, 38), or if it is 'naturally or necessarily done pursuant to, or in furtherance of the conspiracy.' Handley v. State, 115 Ga. 584, 41 S.E. 992 (one Justice 'The State urges that the evidence as a whole, and with all inferences and deductions therefrom, leads to the co......
-
Wall v. State
... ... 12; ... Baker v. State, 17 Ga.App. 279, 86 S.E. 530. This ... rule is subject to the qualification that each is responsible ... for the acts of the others only so far as such acts are ... naturally or necessarily done pursuant to or in furtherance ... of the conspiracy. Handley v. State, 115 Ga. 584, 41 ... S.E. 992 ... The ... reason of this principle of law has been stated thus: ... "No man's connection with a conspiracy can be ... legally established by what the others did in his absence and ... without his knowledge and concurrence." U.S ... ...
-
Wall v. State
...of the others only so far as such acts are naturally or necessarily done pursuant to or in furtherance of the conspiracy. Handley v. State, 115 Ga. 584, 41 S. E. 992. The reason of this principle of law has been stated thus: "No man's connection with a conspiracy can be legally established ......
-
Short v. State
...the others only so far as such acts are naturally or necessarily done pursuant to or in furtherance of the conspiracy. Handley v. State, 115 Ga. 584, 41 S.E. 992 (1902); Wall v. State, 153 Ga. 309, 318(2), 112 S.E. 142 (1922); Clarke v. State, 221 Ga. 206, 212, 144 S.E.2d 90 (1965); Smith v......