Martin v. State

Dec 9, 1924
15955
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Bloodworth
Bloodworth, J.

Plaintiff in error was convicted of receiving a stolen automobile in ‍​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‍Fulton county, knowing that it was stolen. The venue of such a crime is in the county where the stolen article was ‍​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‍received with knowledge that it was stolen. There is no evidence that the accused received the stolen automobile in Fulton county, but direct ‍​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‍and uneontradieted evidence that he received it in Forsyth county. The facts in this ease are so similar to those in Gamblin v. State, 33 Ga. App. 51 (125 ‍​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‍S. E. 517), that the ruling in that ease and in the cases cited therein are controlling in this case. See also Gravitt v. State, 33 Ga. ‍​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‍App. 33 (125 S. E. 503).

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., coneivr.