Sloan v. State

8 Citing cases

  1. Burkett v. State

    212 S.E.2d 870 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 13 times

    Moreover, we recently recognized that the "fatal variance" rule does not apply where the stolen property is identified as being the same as that described in the indictment. Marchman v. State, 129 Ga. App. 22, 24 ( 198 S.E.2d 425). This may occur where the property is described at the trial and a witness identifies it as being the property described in the indictment ( Sloan v. State, 68 Ga. App. 92 ( 22 S.E.2d 333); Lanier v. State, 76 Ga. App. 261, supra) or where the defendant or accomplices admit that the property they stole belonged to the prosecuting witness. Graham v. State, 16 Ga. App. 221, supra; Sewell v. State, 92 Ga. App. 48, supra.

  2. Humphrey v. State

    231 Ga. 855 (Ga. 1974)   Cited 23 times

    The indictment is basically couched in the terms of the statute and adequately puts the defendant on notice that he is accused of the crime of bribery. It alleges a particular date and person from whom the alleged bribe was received for the purpose of influencing appellant in the performance of his duties as a councilman of the City of Warner Robins. This meets the test of the law and is sufficient. See Henderson v. State, 113 Ga. 1148 ( 39 S.E. 446); Wellborn v. State, 78 Ga. App. 520 ( 51 S.E.2d 588); Saunders v. State, 43 Ga. App. 59, 60 ( 152 S.E. 433); Dowda v. State, 74 Ga. 12; and Sloan v. State, 68 Ga. App. 92 ( 22 S.E.2d 333). No error is shown by the enumerations of error complaining the trial court overruled the demurrers to this indictment for bribery. IV. Demurrers to the Misdemeanors Indictment.

  3. Marchman v. State

    132 Ga. App. 677 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 8 times

    In the first indictment, the defendant was charged with stealing a Narvo aircraft radio. Evidence involving any other type of radio, would have been inadmissible and irrelevant unless connected with that charged in the indictment, pursuant to Sloan v. State, 68 Ga. App. 92, 93 ( 22 S.E.2d 333). Here, the variance was held fatal at the instance of the defendant.

  4. Marchman v. the State

    198 S.E.2d 425 (Ga. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 15 times

    We cannot take judicial notice that there is no such thing as a Narvo Avionics any more than we can take judicial notice that there is a Narco Avionics. The only basis for an exception to the rule of a fatal variance occurs where the stolen item is identified as being the same as the one in the indictment. See Sloan v. State, 68 Ga. App. 92, 93 ( 22 S.E.2d 333). In this case no such identification was made.

  5. Ross v. State

    171 S.E.2d 360 (Ga. Ct. App. 1969)   Cited 1 times

    3. The items stolen being "one 32 caliber antique pistol with a 3 inch octagon barrel," "one 22 caliber Higgins Model 31 automatic rifle" and "one 12 gauge Continental double barrel shotgun," as shown by the indictment, were sufficiently described with particularity to distinguish them from other property of like kind; thus the indictment was sufficient to withstand the demurrer. See Streeter v. State, 60 Ga. App. 190 ( 3 S.E.2d 235), and citations contained therein; Sloan v. State, 68 Ga. App. 92 ( 22 S.E.2d 333). The indictment was sufficient to put the defendant on notice of the items he was accused of taking in order that (1) he might prepare his defense and (2) to protect him from double jeopardy. Brown v. State, 116 Ga. 559 ( 42 S.E. 795), cited by the appellant involving an insufficient description of the item stolen is not controlling here.

  6. Marsh v. State

    169 S.E.2d 615 (Ga. Ct. App. 1969)   Cited 8 times

    Moore v. State, 13 Ga. App. 15 ( 78 S.E. 772). No witness identified the automobile in general terms as being the one described in the indictment. See in this connection Sloan v. State, 68 Ga. App. 92 ( 22 S.E.2d 333). The evidence, therefore, did not authorize the conviction. 2.

  7. Sewell v. State

    87 S.E.2d 443 (Ga. Ct. App. 1955)   Cited 1 times

    GARDNER, P. J. In our opinion, Sloan v. State, 68 Ga. App. 92 (1, 2) ( 22 S.E.2d 333), is applicable in several respects to the case here involved. Those headnotes read: "1.

  8. Daniel v. State

    163 S.E.2d 863 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968)   Cited 4 times

    The trial court did not err in overruling the demurrer thereto based thereon. Glass v. State, 26 Ga. App. 157 ( 106 S.E. 13) and Sloan v. State, 68 Ga. App. 92 ( 22 S.E. 333), relied on by appellant, do not require a different ruling. 2.