TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Randall v. State

Randall v. State, 60 S.E. 328 (Ga. Ct. App. 1908)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
February 14, 1908
Docket
No. 925
Judges
Powell
Citations
60 S.E. 3283 Ga. App. 6531908 Ga. App. LEXIS 401
Summary
Indictment for arson, from Houston superior court — Judge Felton. December 18, 1907.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Powell

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Powell, J.

1. The evidence fully sustains the verdict.

2. There is no error in the charge of the court as to the corroboration necessary to support the testimony of an accomplice.

3. In the absence of a written request, the failure of the judge to charge the jury that “the law presumes every fire to be accidental, until the contrary appears, where a man is charged with the offense of arson,” is not reversible error; especially is this true where the arson is proved by direct testimony. Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1908: 11916: 21925: 11927: 11934: 11943: 11992: 119082026peak 1916 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Pulliam v. State28 S.E.2d 139 (Ga. 1943)
  2. Jones v. State176 S.E. 896 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934)
  3. Sutton v. State88 S.E. 122 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916) · Dissent
  4. State v. Smith252 P. 530 (Wash. 1927)
  5. Robinson v. State89 S.E. 434 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916)
  6. Stacey v. State426 S.E.2d 401 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)

Most recent

  1. Stacey v. State426 S.E.2d 401 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)
  2. Pulliam v. State28 S.E.2d 139 (Ga. 1943)
  3. Jones v. State176 S.E. 896 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934)
  4. State v. Smith252 P. 530 (Wash. 1927)
  5. Griffin v. State130 S.E. 368 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925)
  6. Robinson v. State89 S.E. 434 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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