Scott v. State
| Decision Date | 24 December 1932 |
| Docket Number | 22715. |
| Citation | 167 S.E. 210,46 Ga.App. 213 |
| Parties | SCOTT v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
Evidence sustained conviction for stealing chickens.
Objections to evidence as irrelevant and immaterial and as neither relevant nor pertinent held too general to present anything for review.
Intent to steal being material ingredient of simple larceny, in prosecution for stealing chickens, evidence of accused's commission of similar crime held competent to prove intent (Pen. Code 1910, § 152).
Evidence of accused's commission of similar crime was competent under exception to general rule that proof of a distinct independent, and separate offense is inadmissible unless there is some logical connection between the two, from which it can be said that proof of the one tends to establish the other, which exception is applicable whenever intent or guilty knowledge is a material ingredient in the issue of the case, and other acts of a similar character tend to establish such intent or knowledge.
1. The evidence supports the verdict.
2. Intent to steal being a material ingredient in the issue of simple larceny, other acts of a similar character committed at about the same time, tending to establish such intent, are proper evidence. This is an exception to the general rule that, "when one is on trial charged with the commission of a crime, proof of a distinct, independent, and separate offense is never admissible, unless there is some logical connection between the two, from which it can be said that proof of the one tends to establish the other."
3. An objection that evidence is "irrelevant and immaterial" is too general to be considered by this court.
4. For no reason assigned did the trial judge commit reversible error.
Error from Superior Court, Cobb County; J. H. Hawkins, Judge.
T. S Scott was convicted of stealing chickens, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Mozley & Gann, H. B. Moss, and Gordon B. Gann, all of Marietta, for plaintiff in error.
Geo. D Anderson, Sol. Gen., of Marietta, for the State.
The indictment in this case charges that on June 6, 1932, in Cobb county, Ga., Elmer Pressley, T. S. Scott, Henry Stewart, R. S. Wright, and Albert Borders did "wrongfully and fraudulently take, steal, and carry away with intent to steal the same, nine white leghorn chicken hens, the personal goods and private property of P.J. Turner, and being of the value of six dollars." On July 26, 1932, a jury found T. S. Scott, the plaintiff in error, guilty. The exception here is to the judgment overruling Scott's motion for a new trial, based upon the general and four special grounds.
P. J. Turner, sworn for the state, testified, in substance, that on or about June 6, 1932, nine white leghorn hens of the value of $6 were taken from his place in Cobb county, and that he subsequently found said chickens "at Tony's place in Fulton County." O. S. Tony, sworn for the state, testified, in substance, that for several years he had been engaged in the poultry business in Atlanta, Ga.; that on June 7, 1932, he bought from Scott "the same chickens Mr. P.J. Turner identified and got"; that he had purchased chickens from Scott two or three times before; and that Scott brought said chickens to witness' place in an automobile. D. O. Steed, sworn for the state, testified, in substance, that on June 6, 1932, certain chickens other than those described in the indictment and a chicken coop were taken from his home located about one and a half miles below Mableton; that he recovered two of said chickens and said coop from Elmer Pressley's place in Atlanta, Ga.; and that witness never recovered any of said chickens from Scott, and never saw Scott in possession of any of them. J. L. Moon, sworn for the state, testified, in substance, that on June 3, 1932, he lost from his home near Mableton, Cobb county, Ga., seven plymouth rock hens, one white leghorn hen, and "five mixed chicken hens"; that witness lived near Mableton; and that he recovered a "barred plymouth rock rooster" (which was also lost from the same place at the same time) from Elmer Pressley's place, but had never seen the defendant in possession of any of said chickens. Ernest Moss, sworn for the state, testified, in substance, that, when he arrested Scott, Scott told witness that, if he would take him, defendant, to Lyndon Alley, "he would show the other fellows that was with him," and that "Albert Borders and Hence Stewart was at Albert Borders' home on Lyndon Avenue when we drove up." L. P. Williams, sworn for the state, testified, in substance, that on May 6, 1932, he lost from his place near Mableton certain chickens other than those described in the indictment, and that on the next day he found one of said chickens at Scott's place. Mrs. Mary Willis, sworn for the state, testified, in substance, that at a time (not stated) she lost chickens other than those described in the indictment and "got back one black hen at Scott's."
Several witnesses sworn for the defendant testified, in effect, that the chickens alleged to have been stolen had been in Scott's possession long prior to the time that P.J. Turner missed his chickens. Albert Borders, sworn for the defendant, testified, in substance, that on June 7, 1932, he bought two coops of chickens from a white man on Lyndon Alley; that "we took the chickens to Tony's place and he bought them from me"; that Tony paid witness for the chickens, and that Scott had nothing to do with the chickens except to deliver them; that witness repaid Elmer Pressley $4 he had borrowed from him to help pay for the chickens, and paid Scott $2 for "taxie services"; and that only witness, Pressley, and Scott were in the automobile which carried the chickens to Tony's place. Hence Stewart testified that he was not present when said chickens were bought or sold, or when they were delivered. In the main, the defendant's statement to the jury closely follows the testimony of the witness Borders. However, the defendant stated also to the jury that Elmer Pressley bought a barred rock rooster from the same white man from whom Borders purchased the other chickens.
We are satisfied that the evidence supports the verdict, and hold that the trial judge did not err in overruling the general grounds of the motion for a new trial.
In their brief counsel for plaintiff in error state that grounds 2, 3, and 4 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial "are based upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial