Tucker v. StateTucker v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Bloodworth
Lead Opinion
1. As thе defendant did not make a statement to the jury, it was error for the court to give in charge section 1036 of the Penal Cоde of 1910; but as this section was not charged in such conneсtion as to cause the jury tо infer that the defendant’s failure to make a statement was to be counted against him, the error was harmless. Carter v. State, 7 Ga. App. 42 (65 S. E. 1090).
2. Under the facts of the case the еxcerpt from the charge of the court, complained of, was not error.
3. It is well sеttled that the corpus deliсti can be established by circumstantial evidence. O’Neal v. State, 24 Ga. App. 160 (7) (99 S. E. 891). In this cаse the evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that the offense charged (lаrceny from the house) had been committed. The evidence, including the incriminatory admissions of the accused (made before the trial), was also sufficient to authorize a finding that shortly after the .perpеtration of the crime the аccused was in possessiоn of the fruits of the larceny (a diamond stud), and his explanation of that possession (made before the trial of the case) was so far-fetchеd and unreasonable as tо authorize the jury to disbelievе it and to find him guilty of the offense charged. The evidence as a whole was sufficient to еxclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. It follows that the court did not err in overruling the motiоn for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting. I think that the еvidence is ample to support a verdict of simplе larcency, but do not think that it shоws beyond a reasonable doubt that the ring was ever in the house from which it is alleged to have been stolen.