Kryder v. State
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | GUERRY |
| Citation | Kryder v. State, 57 Ga.App. 200, 194 S.E. 890 (Ga. App. 1938) |
| Decision Date | 08 January 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 26510.,26510. |
| Parties | KRYDER. v. STATE. |
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; John D. Humphries, Judge.
J. P. Kryder, alias Red Pope, was convicted of possession of burglary tools, and he brings error.
Reversed.
B. J. Dantone, and James R. Vcnable, both of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
John A. Boykin, Sol. Gen., and J. Walter LeCraw, both of Atlanta, for the State.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. Where, in the trial of one of three persons jointly charged with the possession of burglary tools, Code, § 26-2701, one of the other joint defendants who had entered a plea of guilty, appeared and testified for the State, the charge of the judge to the jury, as follows, was erroneous as an expression or intimation of an opinion by the trial judge as to what had been proved, and such error requires the grant of a new trial. Section 81-1104; Suddeth v. State, 112 Ga. 407 (2, 3), 37 S.E. 747; Golden v. State, 45 Ga.App. 501, 165 S.E. 299; Sellers v. State, 41 Ga.App. 572, 153 S.E. 782; Edwards v. State, 4 Ga.App. 167, 60 S.E. 1033.
2. After stating the requirements of the Code, § 38-110, the judge charged the jury as follows: This charge correctly expresses the legal meaning of the term reasonable doubt, and is not erroneous for any reason assigned. Carr v. State, 84 Ga. 250 (4), 10 S.E. 626; Cobb v. State, 11 Ga.App. 52, 74 S.E. 702; Campbell v. State, 144 Ga. 224 (3), 87 S.E. 277; Flan-nigan v. State, 13 Ga.App. 663 (2), 79 S. E. 745; Lampkin v. State, 145 Ga. 40 (3), 88 S.E. 563; Wall v. State, 153 Ga. 309 (6), 112 S.E. 142; Newsome v. State, 25 Ga.App. 191 (6), 102 S.E. 876; Loyd v. State, 26 Ga.App. 259 (7), 106 S.E. 601.
3. Conspirators are responsible for the acts of each other in carrying out the common purpose or design, although such acts may constitute another criminal offense. Consequently, where two or more persons enter into a conspiracy to commit burglary, and in attempting to carry out such felonious design either one of them has in his possession burglary tools, such possession is the possession of all, and each is guilty of a violation of the Code, § 26-2701, prohibiting and punishing the possession of such tools. The judge's charge, setting out substantially the above principle, was not erroneous.
4. There is no requirement in our Code as to the particular form and order in which a judge should give applicable principles of law in charge to the jury. The thing of paramount importance is that the jury be given the controlling issues and the law applicable thereto. Therefore, an assignment of error that the judge erred in giving at the outset of the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Marshall v. State
...405(1), 110 S.E. 160; Connell v. State, 153 Ga. 151(2), 111 S.E. 545; Bruster v. State, 228 Ga. 651(2), 187 S.E.2d 297; Kryder v. State, 57 Ga.App. 200, 201, 194 S.E. 890; Deering v. State, 123 Ga.App. 223(3), 180 S.E.2d 245. The charge here does not share the infirmity dealt with in Hunsin......