Porter v. The State Of Ga.

• Decision Date: 31 March 1886
• Citation: 76 Ga. 658
• Parties: Porter. vs. The State of Georgia.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

76 Ga. 658

Porter. vs. The State of Georgia.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

MARCH TERM, 1886.

Criminal Law. Accomplice. Venue. Verdict. Before Judge Lumpkin. Habersham Superior Court. September Term, 1885.

Reported in the decision.

Barrow & Thomas; C. H. Sutton; Crane & Jones;E. K. Lumpkin, for plaintiff in error.

W. S. Erwin, solicitor general, by Frank L. Haralson; S. C. Dunlap; Claud Estes, for the state.

Jackson, Chief Justice.

Porter, the plaintiff in error, was indicted for larceny from the house. He was convicted of a misdemeanor, the jury finding that the things stolen were worth less than fifty dollars. He made a motion for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence and against law, which was overruled, and he excepted. Three reasons are given in argument why it is so: first, because the witness against him is an accomplice, and he is not corroborated; secondly, because the offense is not shown to have been committed within two years; and thirdly, because it is not shown to have been committed in the county of Habersham.

1.The uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is sufficient to convict of misdemeanors. Code, §3755. Parsons vs. The State, 43 Ga., 197; Crisson vs. The State, 51 Ga., 597.

2.In finding him guilty, the jury found that the crime was committed in the county of Habersham, that being alleged as the venue in the indictment. Is there any evidence to support the finding? If so, however slight, it is ample, because there is none at all that the crime was committed anywhere else. In his statement, Porter says: "I was at work on the jail here in this place." What place? Of course the place where the case was being tried, which is Clarkesville, the county site of Habersham, and this court will officially know that this case was tried there, and that Clarkesville is the place where the court sits for Habersham county. " That night after supper, " he goes on to say in the statement, "James Roberts says to me, 'Let's go up and see Mr. Groves.' I says, 'All right, for I want to see Alfred Mc—, who lived in the house adjoining Mr. Groves; we went, and 1 says, ' Now. when you get ready to go home, just holler for me.' After awhile he comes to the gate and hollered, and we went on together I did not go out in town any more that night, but wenthome with Roberts and slept together that night. As well as I remember it, when we went it was ten minutes after nine o\'clock when we went to bed. Why Ben Martin " (the accomplice-witness) " has taken the turn he has to shove it on me, I don\'t know."

" That night, " means the night of the crime; the statement sets up the alibi that night. Where? "Here in this place where I was at work on the jail, " is the defendant's answer, and that answer fixes the venue of the crime.

So W. J. Fuller, in reply to Mr. Barrow's question, "And Mr. Porter was working here in this town?" answered, "Yes, sir; I reckon he was; he was staying up here." What here—what town? Of course, Clarkesville, the county site of Habersham county. So again Mr. Barrow asked, " Ben lived here in town?" and Fuller answered, "Yes, sir;" and then he proves by Fuller that "Ben, " or Mr. Martin, Ben Martin, the accomplice-witness, was in the habit of associating with young men in town, with the view of explaining the fact that Porter and Martin were together in town that night.

The doctrine of slight evidence for the venue in Habersham being...