Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

60 Ga. 620

Millen v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided August 15, 1878

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1878-08-15

Criminal law. Evidence, New trial. Indictment. Before Judge Buchanan. Meriwether Superior Court. February Term, 1878. Millen was indicted jointly with one Hannah for arson of a house in a town. The first count charged arson in the ordinary form ; the second, in the charging clause, accused both of arson, but in specifying the act, alleged that Hannah set fire to the house, and that Millen was present aiding and abetting him.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1942

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1878-08-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Jackson, Judge.

¶1The defendant was indicted jointly with one Hannah for the crime of arson, in two counts — in the first as principal in the first degree, in the second as principal in the second degree. And the first point in the motion for new trial is in respect to the sufficiency of the second count.

¶21. It is, in substance, to the effect that both defendants are charged with arson, and then it sets out that Hannah actually set the house on fire, and defendant was present aiding and abetting. This is the way it ought to have been done; and the court was right to uphold the count.

¶32. The court charged that the acts and sayings of Hannah were admissible against defendant on the second count, or either count, where they were contained in his confessions and evidenced by these confessions. This was right, and we see no possible objection to it.

¶43. The other objections go to the confessions, whether voluntary or not, and to the verdict as, being against law and evidence. No motion was made to rule out the evidence, or not to admit it. The confessions all got to the jury without objection, and the court charged the law fully upon them. Indeed, the entire charge is unobjectionable, and the verdict is supported by the evidence, and not against law. Nor do we see any objection on the score of want of corroboration. There is evidence enough of corroboration, and the law thereon was cautiously and carefully given by the court.

¶5Judgment affirmed.

/60/ga/620 · .json · Public domain