Thomas v. State
| Decision Date | 18 May 1916 |
| Docket Number | 7162. |
| Citation | 88 S.E. 917,18 Ga.App. 101 |
| Parties | THOMAS v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
Besides clear and unequivocal proof of the corpus delicti, which was itself sufficient to corroborate the confession made by the accused (Schaefer v. State, 93 Ga. 177 [1], 18 S.E 552; Wilson v. State, 6 Ga.App. 16 [3], 64 S.E. 112; Allen v. State, 8 Ga.App. 90, 68 S.E. 558), there was abundant circumstantial evidence tending to show that the defendant had been in recent possession of the stolen property, and to otherwise corroborate his confession. See Tolver v. State, 10 Ga.App. 33, 72 S.E. 516 (1); Anderson v. State, 72 Ga. 98 (2); Perry v State, 110 Ga. 234, 36 S.E. 781; Griner v State, 121 Ga. 614, 49 S.E. 700.
There being evidence as to a confession by the accused, the conviction did not depend exclusively upon circumstantial evidence, since a confession is direct evidence; and, in the absence of an appropriate request, it would not have been erroneous for the court to omit to charge the law of circumstantial evidence altogether. Smith v. State, 125 Ga. 296, 299, 54 S.E. 127; McElroy v. State, 125 Ga. 37, 40, 53 S.E. 759; Owens v. State, 120 Ga 296, 299, 48 S.E. 21; Eberhart v. State, 47 Ga. 598, 609; Cooner v. State, 16 Ga.App. 540, 85 S.E. 688; Hart v. State, 14 Ga.App. 714, 716, 82 S.E. 164.
"Where an indictment for burglary charges that the breaking and entering of the dwelling house was with intent to commit a larceny, and the larceny is particularly set out, there may be a conviction of larceny from the house." Ray v. State, 121 Ga. 189, 48 S.E. 903 (1). See, also, Polite v. State, 78 Ga. 347; Williams v. State, 60 Ga. 88. The charge of the court upon this subject was a substantial compliance with the above well-settled principle, and the exception taken thereto is wholly without merit.
The excerpt from the charge of the court on the subject of alibi is not for any reason assigned erroneous, and any fuller instruction desired on the precise point should have been requested in writing.
The evidence was legally sufficient to authorize the verdict, and we have no power or inclination to say that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing the motion for a new trial.
Error from Superior Court, Polk County; A. L. Bartlett, Judge.
Sherman Thomas was convicted for larceny, and brings error. Affirmed.
John L Tison and Bunn & Trawick, all of Cedartown, for plaintiff in error.
J. R....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brantley v. State
... ... conviction; the state having proved a positive confession of ... guilt. Eberhart v. State, 47 Ga. 599; Perry v ... State, 110 Ga. 238 (3), 36 S.E. 781; Griner v ... State, 121 Ga. 614, 49 S.E. 700; Smith v ... State, 125 Ga. 296, 299, 54 S.E. 127; Thomas v ... State, 18 Ga.App. 101, 88 S.E. 917 ... Nor did ... the court commit error, in the absence of a proper request, ... in omitting to charge the jury that they were judges of the ... law and facts. Jones v. State, 136 Ga. 157, 71 S.E ... The ... ...
-
Evans v. State, (No. 19184.)
...still, and he assigned a reasonable motive for so doing. See, also, Lang-ston v. State, 153 Ga. 128 (4), 111 S. E. 561; Thomas v. State, 18 Ga. App. 101 (1), 88 S. E. 917. The first special ground of the motion for a new trial complains of the court's charge on circumstantial evidence, and ......
-
Millwood v. State
...Polite v. State, 78 Ga. 347(1); Ray v. State, 121 Ga. 189, 48 S.E. 903; Cannon v. State, 125 Ga. 785, 787, 54 S.E. 692; Thomas v. State, 18 Ga.App. 101(3), 88 S.E. 917; Butts v. State, 26 Ga.App. 40(1), 105 S.E. 372. The conviction of the defendant of larceny from the house was authorized b......
-
Evans v. State
...still, and he assigned a reasonable motive for so doing. See, also, Langston v. State, 153 Ga. 128 (4), 111 S.E. 561; Thomas v. State, 18 Ga.App. 101 (1), 88 S.E. 917. first special ground of the motion for a new trial complains of the court's charge on circumstantial evidence, and alleges ......