Law v. State, 39712

39712 | Ga. Ct. App. | Oct 24, 1962

106 Ga. App. 782" court="Ga. Ct. App." date_filed="1962-10-24" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/law-v-state-1340240?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1340240">106 Ga. App. 782 (1962) 128 S.E.2d 204" court="Ga. Ct. App." date_filed="1962-10-24" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/law-v-state-1340240?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1340240">128 S.E.2d 204

LAW
v.
THE STATE.

39712.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Decided October 24, 1962.

George G. Finch, for plaintiff in error.

Paul Webb, Solicitor General, Eugene L. Tiller, contra.

FRANKUM, Judge.

The defendant's guilt of larceny of an automobile being wholly dependent upon the inference arising from the possession of a part of the stolen automobile after the theft, and this possession being shown by uncontradicted and unimpeached testimony to be consistent with his innocence, the verdict was contrary to the evidence, and a new trial should have been granted. King v. State, 99 Ga. 686" court="Ga." date_filed="1896-10-19" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/king-v-state-5567273?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="5567273">99 Ga. 686 (26 S.E. 480, 59 ASR 251); Williams v. State, 125 Ga. 268" court="Ga." date_filed="1906-05-11" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/williams-v-state-5574962?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="5574962">125 Ga. 268 (54 S.E. 166); Hampton v. State, 6 Ga. App. 778" court="Ga. Ct. App." date_filed="1909-10-13" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/hampton-v-state-5603866?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="5603866">6 Ga. App. 778 (65 S.E. 816" court="Ga. Ct. App." date_filed="1909-10-13" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/anthony-v-state-5603874?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="5603874">65 S.E. 816); Gibbs v. State, 8 Ga. App. 107" court="Ga. Ct. App." date_filed="1910-07-25" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/gibbs-v-state-5604430?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="5604430">8 Ga. App. 107 (68 S.E. 742); Brooks v. State, 21 Ga. App. 661" court="Ga. Ct. App." date_filed="1918-01-22" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/brooks-v-state-5610412?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="5610412">21 Ga. App. 661 (94 S.E. 810); Slaughter v. State, 24 Ga. App. 428" court="Ga. Ct. App." date_filed="1919-11-07" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/slaughter-v-state-5611881?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="5611881">24 Ga. App. 428 (100 S.E. 774); Denson v. State, 26 Ga. App. 427" court="Ga. Ct. App." date_filed="1921-03-08" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/denson-v-state-5613029?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="5613029">26 Ga. App. 427 (106 S.E. 732" court="Ga. Ct. App." date_filed="1921-03-08" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/howard-v-state-5613033?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="5613033">106 S.E. 732); Willis v. State, 33 Ga. App. 352" court="Ga. Ct. App." date_filed="1925-01-14" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/willis-v-state-5616696?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="5616696">33 Ga. App. 352 (126 S.E. 303" court="Ga. Ct. App." date_filed="1925-01-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/pitts-v-eppinger-5616698?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="5616698">126 S.E. 303).

Judgment reversed. Nichols, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.