TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Stinson v. State

Stinson v. State, 194 S.E.2d 505 (Ga. Ct. App. 1972)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 28, 1972
Docket
No. 47628
Judges
Quillian
Citations
194 S.E.2d 505127 Ga. App. 6391972 Ga. App. LEXIS 985

Opinion of the Court — Quillian

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

Quillian, Judge.

1. The defendant was indicted and convicted of the offense of theft by taking of several hogs. *640 The defendant then filed a motion for a new trial which was overruled and an appeal was filed.

Submitted November 7, 1972 Decided November 28, 1972. Owens, Littlejohn, Gower & Pugh, J. Walter Owens, for appellant. E. Mullins Whisnant, District Attorney, for appellee.

Enumeration of error number 3 states: "The Superior Court of Marion County, Georgia, erred as a matter of law in failing to sustain a motion to quash Count 2 of the indictment for the reason that the hogs therein attempted to be described were not sufficiently described so as to identify the property alleged to have been taken and to apprise the defendant of an adequate and complete description thereof so that he could prepare his defense thereto.” Count 2 of the indictment described the hogs as follows: "Two (2) hogs, red color, Duroc, weighing four hundred seventy-five pounds with V’ notch in ear, five (5) hogs white color, Landrace and four (4) hogs black and white color, Hampshire of the total weight of one thousand four hundred five (1,405) pounds, with V notch cut in ear of each, of the total value of Two Hundred Seventy Five and 08/100 ($275.08) dollars.”

Under that which was held in Garrett v. State, 21 Ga. App. 801 ( 95 SE 301 ); Ellis v. State, 67 Ga. App. 821 ( 21 SE2d 316 ); Robertson v. State, 97 Ga. 206 ( 22 SE 974 ), the hogs were sufficiently described in the indictment.

2. Considering the evidence as a whole it was sufficient to support the verdict.

3. The remaining enumeration of error is without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Hall, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Robertson v. State, 22 S.E. 974 (Ga. 1895) 15
Garrett v. State, 95 S.E. 301 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918) 10
Ellis v. State, 21 S.E.2d 316 (Ga. Ct. App. 1942) 9

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