Wilensky v. State

Decision Date04 November 1914
Docket Number5782.
Citation83 S.E. 276,15 Ga.App. 360
PartiesWILENSKY v. STATE.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Syllabus by the Court.

There was no material variance between the allegations and the proof; and the evidence warranted the conviction of the accused, under section 192 of Penal Code 1910.

There is no merit in the exception that the judge, in his charge to the jury, erred "in failing to mention the contentions of the defendant and to call the attention of the jury to his defense." The judge stated to the jury the charge made in the indictment, and then stated that the defendant entered a plea of not guilty, and that this plea put in issue every material allegation in the indictment and the question of the defendant's guilt thereunder, and the jury were fully instructed on the law applicable to the evidence and to the defendant's statement to the jury, and the only assignment of error as to the charge of the court was that stated above. It does not appear that there was any request to charge. No evidence was introduced by the defendant in addition to his statement. "While it is the duty of a judge in the trial of a criminal case to state the contentions of both the state and the defendant, still, in the absence of a request for more definite instructions, a statement by the court that the grand jury has returned an indictment against the defendant, charging him with the offense * * * [stated by the court], and that to this the defendant has filed a plea of not guilty, which makes the issue for them to try, sufficiently presents the issue." Faison v. State, 13 Ga.App. 180, 79 S.E. 39. In the absence of a timely written request, it is not error for the trial judge to omit any reference to a theory of defense raised solely by the statement of the defendant. In the cases of Seymour v. State, 102 Ga. 803 (2), 30 S.E. 263 and Smith v. State, 109 Ga. 479 (3), 35 S.E. 59 cited by council for the accused, the defendant introduced testimony in addition to his own statement.

The defendant being charged with larceny after trust, in having fraudulently converted to his own use a gold watch and a diamond ring, intrusted to him by the prosecutor, and there being testimony to the effect that the prosecutor went to the defendant's pawnshop with the holder of a pawn ticket who had offered to sell it, and that the defendant there stated to the prosecutor that the ticket represented a watch and a diamond ring in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Lunsford v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • July 15, 1939
    ... ... his opinion that they were records kept in the operation of ... such lottery; the weight to be given his testimony in this ... connection being for the jury. See Thomas v. State, ... 67 Ga. 460(4); Howe Machine Co. v. Souder, 58 Ga ... 64(1); Wilensky v. State, 15 Ga.App. 360(4), 83 S.E ...           7. A ... witness introduced by the State testified that they had ... worked for the defendant in the operation of the "number ... game" and this testimony was objected to as a mere ... conclusion on their part. The objection was ... ...
  • Lunsford v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • July 15, 1939
    ...in this connection being for the jury. See Thomas v. State, 67 Ga. 460(4); Howe Machine Co. v. Souder, 58 Ga. 64(1); Wilensky v. State, 15 Ga.App. 360(4), 83 S.E. 276. 7. A witness introduced by the State testified that they had worked for the defendant in the operation of the "number game"......
  • Stone v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • November 1, 1947
    ...and which, as matters of law, are fairly presented in his instructions to the jury, as contentions of the defendant' In Wilensky v. State, 15 Ga.App. 360(2), 83 S.E 276, it is stated: '"While it is the duty of a judge in the trial of a criminal case to state the contentions of both the stat......
  • Amusements of America v. Schatz
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • October 20, 1966
    ...the jury as to issues made by the evidence alone.' Thomas v. Barnett, 107 Ga.App. 717(7), 730, 131 S.E.2d 818, 820; Wilensky v. State, 15 Ga.App. 360, 83 S.E. 276; A. G. Boone Co. v. Owens, 54 Ga.App. 379, 384, 187 S.E. 899; Hewitt v. Davis, 97 Ga.App. 97, 102, 102 S.E.2d 77; Bibb Transit C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT