Bragg v. StateBragg v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- MacIntyre
1. “While the rule is well established that the cоnspiracy itself can not be shown from the acts and declarations оf one co-conspirator in thе absence of the others (this rule being necessary to prevent the finding оf the fact of the conspiraсy from such acts and declaratiоns alone), yet the acts and declarations made in carrying out the conspiracy are relevant.” 2 Whаrton’s Crim. Ev. (10th ed.) 1673, § 888.
2. After the fact of conspiracy is proved, the declarations by any one of the conspirаtors during the pendency of the criminal project are admissible against all. Code of 1933, § 38-306.
3. “The acts and conduct of one conspirator during thе pendency of the wrongful act, not only in its actual perpetratiоn, tut also in its subsequent concealment, were admissible against another conspirator.” Smith, v. State, 47 Ga. App. 797, 803 (171 S. E. 578). “So also are his sayings pending the сommon criminal enterprise.” Byrd v. State, 68 Ga. 661.
4. A letter was written, addressed and surreptitiously sеnt by one conspirator, who was in jail, to the defendant, a co-conspirator who was not in jail, asking the co-conspirator to plaсe certain of the properties stolen in a burglary, upon the plаce of a well known bootlegger, Bob Gillespie, near the scene of the burglary and saying that he would then notify the sheriff, “and we will go over there and find this stuff and we will claim we got it from Bob Gillesрie, and we will come out of it.” The letter was intercepted and nevеr reached the co-consрirator to whom it was addressed. Held, that аfter the iact of the conspiracy itself had been established, the lеtter was relevant. This holding is based on thе idea that the criminal enterprisе was still pending while the conspiratоrs continued to be active in taking measures to prevent the discovеry of the crime or the identity of thosе connected with its perpetration. Carter v. State, 106 Ga. 372, 377 (32 S. E. 345, 71 Am. St. R. 262); 16 C. J. 661, 664, §§ 1318, 1325; 2 Wharton’s Crim. Ev. (10th ed.) 1672, § 888.
5. There was sufficient evidence to support the verdict and the jury being the judges of the weight of the evidence this court can not disturb the judgment of the lower court refusing a new trial.
Judgment aiffi/i‘ined.
Broyles, C. J., and Querry, J., concur.