Murphy v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Roach v. State

    81 S.E.2d 886 (Ga. Ct. App. 1954)

    " Harris v. State, 184 Ga. 382, 392 ( 191 S.E. 439); Bolton v. State, 21 Ga. App. 184 ( 94 S.E. 95); Breedlove v. State, 84 Ga. App. 370 (7) ( 66 S.E.2d 409); Code ยง 26-1901. Where the undisputed evidence demanded a finding that, whether the defendant actually went to the warehouse with the other witnesses or not, he received them and the stolen sugar in his home late at night, and immediately went out with a part of it and attempted to sell it, the jury was authorized to infer an unlawful agreement among the four participants to steal and dispose of the sugar upon which the defendant's guilt might be predicated. See, in this connection, Sivells v. State, 57 Ga. App. 188 ( 194 S.E. 845); McDuffie v. State, 17 Ga. App. 342 (1) ( 86 S.E. 821); Murphy v. State, 68 Ga. App. 111 ( 22 S.E.2d 184). In both Miller v. State, 12 Ga. App. 550 ( 77 S.E. 891) and Slaughter v. State, 24 Ga. App. 428 ( 100 S.E. 774), uncontradicted and unimpeached testimony existed, proving the defendants to be entirely innocent of the crime of larceny.

  2. Hornbuckle v. State

    45 S.E.2d 98 (Ga. Ct. App. 1947)   Cited 1 times

    See Cheatham v. State, 57 Ga. App. 858 ( 197 S.E. 70); McCullough v. State, 57 Ga. App. 863 (2) ( 197 S.E. 68); Morris v. State, 72 Ga. App. 466 ( 34 S.E.2d, 46). See also Shaneyfelt v. State, 24 Ga. App. 555 ( 101 S.E. 592); Coe v. State, 37 Ga. App. 82 ( 138 S.E. 919); Haney v. State, 47 Ga. App. 132 (2) ( 169 S.E. 771); Shivers v. State, 50 Ga. App. 419 ( 178 S.E. 399); Murphy v. State, 68 Ga. App. 111 ( 22 S.E.2d 184). The charge of the court is a substantially correct statement of the rule that recent possession of stolen property by a defendant may authorize a conviction unless satisfactorily explained and was authorized under the evidence in the instant case. Grounds 5, 6 and 8 of the amended motion for new trial are without merit.