Yawn v. State
| Decision Date | 25 January 1956 |
| Citation | 93 Ga.App. 236,91 S.E.2d 312 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
J. Ellis Pope, Lyons, Jackson & Graham, Vidalia, for plaintiff in error.
W. H. Lanier, Sol. Gen., Metter, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. Breaking and entering are essential elements of the offense of burglary; and, where the State relies on circumstantial evidence alone to show such breaking and entering such evidence must be sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused, Gentry v. State, 83 Ga.App. 330, 63 S.E.2d 611; Mosley v. State, 49 Ga.App. 147, 174 S.E. 543; Slappey v. State, 50 Ga.App. 17, 176 S.E. 908, and, where, upon the trial of one charged in an indictment in two counts with burglarizing a named place of business on two named dates from which he stole certain enumerated items of personal property, it appears from the evidence that the defendant was found in possession of certain of the items alleged to have been stolen shortly after the alleged time of the alleged burglaries, and there was positive evidence that the defendant was seen entering the named place of business on the night of one of the two named dates and seen removing certain of the enumerated items of property, but there is no evidence of any breaking or any evidence that the door through which he was seen to pass was closed at the time or had been either closed or locked at the close of business for that date, and there was some evidence that on other occasions doors to the named place of business had been found open after the close of business for the day, the evidence authorizes a conviction for larceny but will not authorize a conviction for burglary.
2. Recently stolen property found in the possession of one accused of burglary and which is identified as having been stored in the place of business alleged to have been burglarized may be introduced in evidence, although the articles thus introduced are not included in those enumerated in the indictment. Such articles may furnish corroborative evidence in aid of other evidence indication the commission of a crime; and the fact that such articles disappeared along with the other articles enumerated in the indictment would furnish strong presumptive proof of the commission of the burglary, a crime where it is not essential to prove more than that the breaking, if a breaking be shown, was with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Newton
...642, 244 S.E.2d 594 (1978) ( “Formerly, burglary required breaking and [755 S.E.2d 789]entering. 1933 Code § 26–2401.1 See Yawn v. State, 93 Ga.App. 236, 91 S.E.2d 312 [ (1956) ].”). In 1968, the criminal code was amended and Georgia did away with the breaking requirement such that proof of......
-
Hampton v. State, 55434
...pp. 1249, 1287; Code Ann. § 26-1601). Formerly, burglary required breaking and entering. 1933 Code § 26-2401. See Yawn v. State, 93 Ga.App. 236, 91 S.E.2d 312. While the evidence in this case would establish a breaking, entry as is now solely required was not shown. See 13 Am.Jur.2d 326, Bu......
-
Yawn v. State, 36305
...counts in the Superior Court of Toombs County for burglary. The first trial resulted in a reversal of the conviction, see Yawn v. State, 93 Ga.App. 236, 91 S.E.2d 312, and on the second trial he was convicted of burglary as to Count 1 and larceny as to Count 2. His motion for new trial as a......
- James v. Jacobsen