Williamson v. State

• Decision Date: 09 September 1938
• Docket Number: 27000.
• Parties: WILLIAMSON v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

198 S.E. 552

58 Ga.App. 389

WILLIAMSON v. STATE.

No. 27000.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, First Division

September 9, 1938

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

In prosecution for burglary, whether a smokehouse located about 25 feet from the back door of the prosecutor's home and separated therefrom by a fence containing a gate leading from the yard immediately back of the house to the smokehouse was an "outhouse" contiguous to or within the curtilage or protection of the mansion or dwelling house within meaning of statute providing that an "outhouse" so located shall be considered as part of the mansion or dwelling house was for the jury. Code 1933, § 26-2401.

In a criminal prosecution, the venue of the offense must be established clearly and beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a criminal prosecution, the venue of the offense may be established by circumstantial as well as by direct evidence.

In prosecution for burglary, where prosecutor testified that his "home" was in the county of the trial, evidence that allegedly burglarized smokehouse was located 25 feet from the "house" of the prosecutor was sufficient to establish venue of the offense in the county of trial in absence of indication that county line was in close proximity to prosecutor's residence. Code 1933, § 26-2401.

Error from Superior Court, Emanuel County; R. N. Hardeman, Judge.

Lemuel Williamson was convicted of burglary, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

Alfred Herrington, Jr., and I. W. Rountree, both of Swainsboro, for plaintiff in error.

W. H Lanier, Sol. Gen., of Metter, for the State.

Syllabus OPINION.

GUERRY Judge.

1. It is a question for the jury to determine whether a "smokehouse" located about 25 feet from the back door of the home of the prosecutor, and separated therefrom by a fence containing a gate leading from the yard immediately back of the house to the "smokehouse," is an outhouse "contiguous to or within the curtilage or protection of the mansion or dwelling house" as provided in the Code, § 26-2401. See Bryant v. State, 60 Ga 358; Wright v. State, 12 Ga.App. 514, 77 S.E. 657; Parks v. State, 22 Ga.App. 621, 96 S.E. 1050; McSwain v. S. & W. Estroff, 34 Ga.App. 183, 129 S.E 16.

2. In the trial of a criminal case the venue of the offense must be established clearly and beyond a reasonable doubt. This may be done by circumstantial as well as by direct evidence. Whitfield v. State, 51 Ga.App. 439, 180 S.E. 630 and citations. While it is true that proof that the crime was committed a given distance from a designated point in the county of the trial is not alone sufficient to establish the venue of such crime within the county (Futch v. State, 90 Ga. 472, 16 S.E. 102; Berry v. State, 92 Ga. 47, 17 S.E. 1006; Green v. State, 110 Ga. 270, 34 S.E. 563; Jones v. State, 113 Ga. 271, 38 S.E. 851), and therefore that the evidence in the present case that the smokehouse alleged to have been burglarized was located 25 feet from the house of ...