Vinson v. State

• Decision Date: 30 April 1932
• Docket Number: No. 22123.,22123.
• Citation: 45 Ga.App. 220,164 S.E. 209
• Parties: VINSON. v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

45 Ga.App. 220

164 S.E. 209

VINSON.

v.STATE.

No. 22123.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

April 30, 1932.

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; E. D. Thomas, Judge.

Bill Vinson was convicted of carrying a pistol without having a license therefor, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

F. Joe Turner, Jr., of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

John A. Boykin, Sol. Gen., E. A. Stephens and J. W. Le Craw, all of Atlanta, for the State.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

BROYLES, C. J.

1. Where two persons, acting together and in concert, hold up and rob another, one of the robbers having a pistol in his hand, and the other robber having no pistol but being present and assisting in the holdup and robbery, and the scene of the robbery being outside the home and place of business of the one carrying the pistol, and he being without a license to carry it, both of them are guilty of the offense of carrying a pistol without first having secured a license therefor. This is so, because in misdemeanors all persons who are present at the scene of the crime, aiding and abetting the actual perpetrator thereof, are guilty as principals.

2. The indictment charged that the offense was committed on September 6, 1931, and the defendant was tried on October 12, 1931. The witnesses testified that the crime was committed on "Sunday, September 6th." Under these circumstances, and in the absence of anything to the contrary, the jury were authorized to find that the date of the offense was September 6, 1931. Plair v. State, 23 Ga. App.574 (1), 99 S. E. 61, and citations.

3. The defendant was tried on an indictment containing two counts; the first count charging carrying a pistol without having a license therefor, and the second charging the carrying of a concealed pistol. In his charge the judge submitted to the jury the first count only of the indictment. This was equivalent to instructing them that the accused could not be convicted on the second count. The jury, however, returned a verdict of guilty on both counts. The verdict was propertly construed by the courtas meaning guilty on the first count only, and sentence in accordance therewith was imposed. See Hall v. State, 43 Ga. App. 224, 158 S. E. 357.

4. Error is assigned upon the following charge: "If you believe that Olin Smith did have and carry about his person, and did have in his manual possession, a pistol, outside of his own home and place of business, without having obtained a license from...