Tarver v. State

• Decision Date: 21 December 1894
• Citation: 21 S.E. 381,95 Ga. 222
• Parties: TARVER. v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

21 S.E. 381

95 Ga. 222

TARVER.

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Dec. 21, 1894.

Burglary—Arraignment and Plea—Possession op Stolen Property—Instructions.

1. Waiver of arraignment, and the entry of this fact, together with a plea of not guilty, by the solicitor general upon the indictment, sufficiently form the issue to be tried in a criminal case. After this has been done, it is unnecessary to further call upon the defendant to plead.

2. There was no error, as against the accused, if any at all, in instructing the jury that if, upon consideration of the evidence and thestatement of the accused, all reasonable doubt of his guilt was removed, they should convict.

3. The evidence as to the breaking being amply sufficient, there was no error in refusing to charge as to the offense of larceny from the house, nor was there any error in admitting evidence of the value of the goods taken from the premises burglariously entered, although no value was alleged in the indictment. This evidence was material as a part of the description of the goods found in the possession of the accused, and bore upon the account given by him of that possession.

4. In passing upon the possession of stolen goods as evidence offered to show criminality, the time which elapsed between the theft and the possession, and the manner in which the possession was accounted for, or that it was not accounted for at all, are material matters for the consideration of the jury, to which the court, by appropriate instructions, should direct their attention. Though reference to the element of recency should never be omitted, it is not absolutely essential, if the possession was in fact very recent; but in a trial for burglary, where the evidence upon which the state mainly relied, and without which there could have been no legal conviction, consisted of proof showing possession by the accused of goods which had been stolen from the premises burglariously entered, and there was an explanation by him of that possession which, if true, was consistent with his innocence, an entire failure by the court to submit to the jury the question whether or not that explanation was reasonable and satisfactory is cause for a new trial; it appearing that the court did, in substance, instruct the jury that the fact of the possession of the stolen goods might, in connection with the other facts in evidence, authorize a conviction.

5. Except as indicated in the preceding note, no error was committed at the trial.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Jones county; W. F. Jenkins, Judge.

Robert Tarver was convicted of burglary, and brings error. Reversed.

John R. Cooper, for plaintiff in error.

H. G. Lewis, Sol. Gen. (Felder & Davis, of counsel), for the State.

LUMPKIN, J. 1. The object of arraigning a prisoner is to give him an opportunity to plead to the indictment. If he waives arraignment, there is no further occasion to call upon him to plead; and certainly where, after the arraignment has been waived, the solicitor general enters upon the indictment a plea of not...