Harvey v. State
| Decision Date | 09 March 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 41179,No. 2,41179,2 |
| Citation | 111 Ga.App. 279,141 S.E.2d 604 |
| Parties | Verlon HARVEY v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Robert K. Ballew, Blue Ridge, for plaintiff in error.
C. B. Holcomb, Sol. Gen., Canton, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. "There is a very wide distinction between admitting the main fact, and admitting some minor or subordinate fact or series of facts which could be true whether the main fact existed or not.' [Fletcher v. State, 90 Ga. 468, 17 S.E. 100] A confession is a voluntary admission of guilt. [a]n admission, as applied to criminal cases, is the avowal of a fact or of circunstances from which guilt may be inferred, but only tending to prove the offense charged, and not amounting to a confession of guilt.' Riley v. State, 1 Ga.App. 651(3), 57 S.E. 1031. 'An incriminating statement is indirect or circumstantial evidence.' Pressley v. State, 201 Ga. 267, 270, 39 S.E.2d 478, 481.
2. Allen v. State, 14 Ga.App. 115(1), 80 S.E. 215 3. 'The rule, applicable where the evidence relied on to convict of a crime is wholly circumstantial, that, to warrant a conviction, the proved facts must not only be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, but must exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt [Code § 38-109], should not have been ommitted from the instructions of the court to the jury, where, to convict * * * the State relied wholly on circumstantial evidence and on an admission * * *.' Hart v. State, 14 Ga.App. 714(3), 82 S.E. 164.
4. In a prosecution for larceny or burglary the recent, unexplained possession of the property alleged to have been stolen by the defendant is considered sufficient proof, if the jury sees fit to accept it, to satisfy the requirements of the circumstantial evidence rule as contained in Code § 38-109. Cheatham v. State, 57 Ga.App. 858, 859, 197 S.E. 70; Myerholtz v. State, 109 Ga.App. 352, 136 S.E.2d 165; Jones v. State, 105 Ga. 649, 31 S.E. 574.
5. The written statement made by the defendant in the present case was an incriminating statement which connected him with the event but was not a confession of guilt, and was therefore...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State
...amounts to a confession.' Accord, Patrick v. State, 209 Ga. 645, 74 S.E.2d 848; Owens v. State, 120 Ga. 296, 48 S.E. 21; Harvey v. State, 111 Ga.App. 279, 141 S.E.2d 604. In such a situation, the law presumes malice, the requisite mental state to be guilty of murder. Patrick v. State, Where......
-
Bryan v. State, s. 51292
...circumstantial evidence rule and raised a question of guilt that properly was submitted to the jury for determination. Harvey v. State, 111 Ga.App. 279, 141 S.E.2d 604; Brown v. State, 125 Ga.App. 300, 187 S.E.2d 301. 3. Appellants enumerate several errors upon that portion of the jury char......
-
Campbell v. State, s. 48558
...20 years. The evidence of a defendant's unexplained possession of recently stolen property is circumstantial evidence (Harvey v. State, 111 Ga.App. 279(5), 141 S.E.2d 604), and therefore where such evidence is the only evidence tending to show guilt, the rule with regard to the court's char......
-
Brown v. State, 46770
...the circumstantial evidence rule as contained in Code § 38-109. Myerholtz v. State, 109 Ga.App. 352, 136 S.E.2d 165; Harvey v. State, 111 Ga.App. 279, 280, 141 S.E.2d 604. 3. After a verdict of guilty, in passing on a motion for new trial, that view of the evidence most favorable to the Sta......