TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Stone v. State

Stone v. the State

Stone v. State, 245 S.E.2d 62 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 28, 1978
Docket
No. 55625
Judges
Webb, Quillian, McMurray
Citations
245 S.E.2d 62145 Ga. App. 8151978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2146

Opinion — Webb

Webb, Judge.

Tommy Stone, having been found guilty of the offenses of kidnapping and rape, on his appeal asserts that the verdict was contrary to law and to the evidence, and that the trial court erred in failing to correctly charge the jury Code Ann. § 26-601. There is no merit in these contentions and we affirm.

1. Section 26-601 reads: "A crime is a violation of a statute of this State in which there shall be a union of joint *816 operation of act, or omission to act, and intention, or criminal negligence.” The last part of that section was read to the jury, through an obviously unintentional slip of the tongue, to be "and the intention of criminal negligence.” We do not regard this to be significant, especially when considered with the entire charge.

Submitted April 5, 1978 Decided April 28, 1978.

Milton F. Gardner, for appellant.

Joseph H. Briley, District Attorney, for appellee.

2. The jury are the proper judges of the weight and sufficiency of testimony and of the credibility of witnesses, and this court will not disturb the verdict of a jury where there is evidence to support its findings. "On appeals from findings of guilt, the presumption of innocence no longer prevails,... the fact finders have been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, and the appellate courts review the evidence only to determine if there is any evidence sufficient to authorize the fact finder to return the verdict of guilty.”

Ridley v. State, 236 Ga. 147, 149 ( 223 SE2d 131 ) (1976) ;

Paul v. State, 144 Ga. App. 106 (1) ( 240 SE2d 600 ) (1977) . There was evidence sufficient to authorize the jury to find the accused guilty.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and McMurray, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1978: 11979: 11980: 219782026peak 1980 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Dudley v. State251 S.E.2d 815 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978)
  2. Mathis v. State266 S.E.2d 275 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)
  3. Hodge v. State254 S.E.2d 478 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979)
  4. Wright v. State264 S.E.2d 316 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)

Most recent

  1. Mathis v. State266 S.E.2d 275 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)
  2. Wright v. State264 S.E.2d 316 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)
  3. Hodge v. State254 S.E.2d 478 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979)
  4. Dudley v. State251 S.E.2d 815 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Ridley v. State, 223 S.E.2d 131 (Ga. 1976) 186
Paul v. State, 240 S.E.2d 600 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977) 18

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list