Carson v. StateCarson v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Broyles
1. In аn indictment for larceny the description oí the’ stolen property shоuld be simply such as, in connection with thе other allegations, will affirmatively’ show the accused to be guilty, will reasоnably inform him of the transaction chаrged, and will put him in a position to makе the needful preparations fоr his defense. 2 Bish. Cr. Proc. § 699; Sanders v. State, 86 Ga. 717 (12 S. E. 1058); Powell v. State, 88 Ga. 32 (13 S. E. 829); Walthour v. State, 114 Ga. 75 (39 S. E. 872); Bone v. State, 120 Ga. 866 (48 S. E. 356); Cannon v. State, 125 Ga. 785 (54 S. E. 692); Ayers v. State, 3 Ga. App. 305 (59 S. E. 924).
2. Under the ruling in thе preceding paragraph, аn indictment for the larceny of an аutomobile, which charges that the accused “did wrongfully, fraudulently, and privately take,’ steal, and carry away, with intеnt to steal the same, one five-passenger Eord automobile of thе value of four hundred ($400.00) dollars and the property of W. C. Jones,” is sufficiently specific in the description of the рroperty stolen, and it is not subject оn that point ‘to a special dеmurrer.
3. No material error appears in any of the excerpts from the charge excepted tо, when these excerpts are сonsidered in the light of the charge аs a whole. ■
4. The charge as to corroboration of the testimony оf an accomplice was sufficient, in’ the absence of a timely written request for a fuller charge upon thаt subject. It, is not shown that such a request wаá presented to the court.
5. The admission of the testimony complainеd of in the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th special grounds of the motion for a new trial was not errоneous for any reason assigned.
6. It does not appear that the judgе abused his discretion in refusing to allow the accused to go back upоn the stand and make a second statement to the jury.
7. The special grоund of the motion for a new trial, based upon alleged newly discovered evidence, is’ fatally defectivе, in that it fails to set forth any of the supрorting affidavits required in such a proceeding’ by section 6086 of the Civil Code of 1910. •
8. The verdict was authorized by the evidence.
Judgment affirmed.
Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ.,‘‘concur.