Head v. StateHead v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Broyles
Thе court dicl not err in giving the following charge: “The law makes you alsо in criminal cases the judge of the law, and yon take the law in these instructions from the court, and you are hound by the law as given you in this charge, but you make the application of the law that you take frоm the court to the facts as brought out in the evidence in this hearing, and in that manner reach the truth of thе case and let that be expressed in your verdict.” Davis v. State, 136 Ga. 798 (72 S. E. 157), and cit.; Holton v. State, 137 Ga. 86 (8) (72 S. E. 949).
The defendаnts, Fred Head and Louis Head, werе tried for burglary on an indictment containing two counts, and were found guilty on both counts. W. D. Turner was a witness for the State, and the defendants cоntend that he was an accomplice in both burglaries, and that his еvidence was not sufficiently corroborated. “Whether a witness is аn ‘accomplice’ within the mеaning of the exception in the Penal Code, § 1017 [Code of 1933, § 38-121], relating to the number of witnesses necеssary to establish a fact, the tеst in general is ‘could the witness himself have been indicted for the offense either as principal or as accessory.’ ” Kearce v. State, 178 Ga. 220 (2) (172 S. E. 643), and cit. Aрplying this ruling to the facts of the instant cases, Turner was an accоmplice of the defendants in the burglary charged in the first count of thе indictment, but he was not an accomplice in the transaction charged in the second cоunt. The verdict on the second count was amply authorized by the evidence. As to the burglary chargеd in the first count, the testimony of the accomplice, Turner, was suffiсieiztly corroboz‘ated by the testimony of other witnesses. In each case the verdict on both сounts was authorized by the evidence, and the refusal to graizt a new trial was not error.
Judgments affirmed.
MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.