Steadman v. State
| Decision Date | 05 December 1888 |
| Citation | 8 S.E. 420,81 Ga. 736 |
| Parties | STEADMAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Notwithstanding strong and satisfactory evidence of good character, guilt may be established by a chain of circumstances, the suspicious conduct of the accused, his failure to explain such conduct in a reasonable and probable way, and the identification of him by means of his cap and coat.
No other motive appearing for an attempt at burglary near midnight, the intent to steal may be inferred; there being valuable effects in the building.
Error from superior court, Hall county; WELLBORN, Judge.
George K. Looper and J. B. Estes, for plaintiff in error.
Howard Thompson, Sol. Gen., for the State.
1. Steadman was convicted of a misdemeanor, the same consisting of an attempt to commit burglary by attempting to break and enter a dwelling-house with intent to steal therefrom. That a burglary was attempted by some one on the occasion in question is not uncertain. It was late at night, the moon was shining brightly, and the person was seen standing in the shadow of the building, at a window, with his hands occupied as if trying to unfasten and open the blinds. On being detected, and spoken to, he ran, was shot at several times made his escape from the premises, and disappeared in full flight. Within about five minutes Steadman was brought to the same house in custody of the police, and was identified by means of his cap and coat as the man who had been seen at the window. The police had caught him in a neighboring street along which he was running soon after the shots were fired. He gave at the time no reasonable or probable explanation of his presence in that locality, or of the rapidity of his locomotion. In his statement at the trial, he said he had been "over near Judge Rice's place," but mentioned no one who saw him, and did not say why he went there, nor specify the place in any terms more definite. He made no attempt to prove an alibi. Numerous witnesses testified to his good character; indeed, so strong was the evidence on this subject that had not a jury of the vicinage found him guilty it would be difficult to believe that he was the culprit. But we think that, in spite of his excellent character, the evidence warranted the verdict.
2. It was contended in the argument that an intent to steal was not sufficiently shown to have been the motive of the attempt to break and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Oldham
...State v. Kleier, 69 Idaho 278, 206 P.2d 513 (1949). See also State v. Woodruff, 208 Iowa 236, 225 N.W. 254 (1929); Steadman v. State, 81 Ga. 736, 8 S.E. 420 (1888). The evidence deduced at trial clearly demonstrates the existence of intent to commit either grand or petty larceny in the Seve......
-
United States v. Thomas, 23975.
...State v. Woodruff, 208 Iowa 236, 225 N.W. 254 (1929); State v. Gatewood, 169 Kan. 679, 221 P.2d 392, 396-397 (1950); Steadman v. State, 81 Ga. 736, 8 S.E. 420 (1888); Commonwealth v. Ronchetti, 333 Mass. 78, 128 N.E.2d 334, 336 (1955); State v. Wills, 107 N.H. 107, 218 A.2d 47, 49 (1966); 2......
-
State v. Zayas
...of human nature, that other motives being eliminated, that remains as a sort of residuary solvent of conduct." Steadman v. State, 81 Ga. 736, 737, 8 S.E. 420 (1888). There is no In this opinion PETERS, C.J., and SHEA, J., concurred. ARTHUR H. HEALEY, Associate Justice, with whom DANNEHY, As......
-
Howard v. State, 63007
...to leave when the investigating officer went up to him to ask for identification before his arrest. See in this connection Steadman v. State, 81 Ga. 736, 8 S.E. 420; Nolen v. State, 124 Ga.App. 593, 594, 184 S.E.2d 674; Loury v. State, 147 Ga.App. 152, 248 S.E.2d 291; Parrish v. State, 141 ......