Thomas v. State

<p>1. Criminal law <&wkey;l 168(1)— Failure to give general charge as to count on which defendant was acquitted not prejudicial.</p> <p>Where one indicted for grand larceny and receiving stolen property was acquitted of the latter charge, the court’s refusal to give the general charge for him as to that count, was not prejudicial, even had it been erroneous.</p> <p>2. Criminal law <S&wkey;8l4(l7) — Charge as to circumstantial evidence held inapplicable to facts.</p> <p>In a p'roseeution for grand larceny, which could have been committed by more than one person, the court properly refused to charge that no matter how strong may be the circumstantial evidence relied on accused’s guilt is not established if the circumstances can be reconciled with the theory that some other person may be guilty, where the charge was not applicable to the facts.</p> <p>3. Criminal law &wkey;o829( 15) — Refusal of charge on circumstantial evidence covered by charges' given not error.</p> <p>Refusal of a charge as to circumstantial evidence, covered by charges given is not error.</p> <p>4. Criminal law &wkey;>829(3) — Argumentative charge as to sufficiency of proof of grand larceny properly' refused where court had already fairly charged on law of larceny.</p> <p>In a prosecution for grand larceny, on the law of which the court fairly charged, an argumentative charge that the state must prove wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with a felonious intent to convert it to defendant’s own use without the owner’s consent was properly refused.</p> <p>5. Criminal law &wkey;8l I (3) — Charge that openness of defendant’s conduct might be considered properly refused as singling out portion of evidence.</p> <p>In a prosecution for grand larceny, a charge that' the openness of defendant’s conduct in taking, keeping, or disposing of the property might be considered in determining his guilt or innocence was properly refused as singling out a portion of the evidence.</p>