Steele v. State, 22785.

• Decision Date: 05 April 1933
• Docket Number: No. 22785.,22785.
• Parties: STEELE . v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

46 Ga.App. 674

168 S.E. 908

STEELE .

v.STATE.

No. 22785.

Court of Appeals of Georgia,

Division No. 1.

April 5, 1933.

Syllabus by. the Court.

The defendant's conviction of larceny from the house was authorized by the evidence, and the special grounds of the motion for a new trial fail to show reversible error.

Error from Superior Court, Walker County; James Maddox, Judge.

Earl Steele was convicted of larceny from the house, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

Fariss Langford, of La Fayette, for plaintiff in error.

M. Neil Andrews, Sol. Gen., of La Fayette, for the State.

BROYLES, Chief Judge.

The defendant and three other persons were jointly indicted for the offense of larceny from the house. They were charged with stealing "one Giant make automobile tire, one box of Bulldog brand tire patching, three Pee-Gee automobile tire boots, two tubes automobile radiator cement, one Champion make spark plug, and one can of Home lubricant oil."

On the trial the evidence showed that the above-named articles were missed by the prosecutor from his filling station; that on the same day, and shortly before the disappearance of the articles, the defendant and his three companions came in an automobile to the filling station for the purpose of having a tire patched; that soon after they had driven away the articles were missed; that subsequently on the same day the defendant and his three companions were arrested, and articles similar in brand and character to the ones stolen were found in their possession some of them being in the immediate possession of the defendant; that the articles, however, were of a brand and character which could have been bought at many other filling stations or stores, and that they had no "earmarks" by which they could be positively identified as the stolen articles. The goods found in the possession of the defendant and his companions were exhibited before the court and jury, and the prosecutor testified that they were exactly similar in brand and appearance to those stolen from his filling station, and that he believed them to be his stolen property, although he could not swear that they were.

While it is necessary for conviction in a larceny case, where the state relies upon recent possession of the stolen goods, that the articles found in the possession of the accused be identified as those alleged to have been stolen, such identity can be established by the testimony of the owner of the goods that the articles found in the possession of the accused, where they have no "earmarks" to identify them, are of the same brand and character as the stolen goods, and that, from their brand, character, and appearance, he believes...