green
Positive treatment
10.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1904 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1904
1965
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lajayvayon Malek Johnson v. State
The circumstances, the time, the secrecy, all the transactions before, at the time and afterwards, may be brought to bear upon what was the knowledge of the receiver; and if from all these the jury can conclude that the receiver did have good reason, as a reasonable person, to believe or suspect that the goods were stolen, they may well conclude, if he did not inquire and investigate before he received them, that he had knowledge, such as the law will charge him with, of the character of the goods and of the person from whom he received, as one who had stolen them. 7 (Citation and punctuation …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hines v. Good Housekeeping Shop
With regard to a party’s “guilty knowledge,” “[t]he circumstances, the time, the secrecy, all the transactions before, at the time and afterwards, may be brought to bear upon what was the knowledge...” Birdsong v. State, 120 Ga. 850, 853 ( 48 SE 329 ) (1904).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McJunkin v. State
The circumstances, the time, the secrecy, all the transactions before, at the time and afterwards, may be brought to bear upon what was the knowledge of the receiver...’” Birdsong v. State, 120 Ga. 850, 853 ( 48 SE 329 ) (1904).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Aldridge v. State
See generally Code Ann. § 26-1806; Birdsong v. State, 120 Ga. 850, 853 ( 48 SE 329 ) (1904).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Saunders v. State
In Birdsong v. State, 120 Ga. 850, 853 ( 48 SE 329 ), the Supreme Court stated: " 'Circumstances may convict of the defendant’s knowledge, as well as actual and direct proof.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cobb v. State
Birdsong v. State, 120 Ga. 850, 852 ( 48 SE 329 ); Rivers v. State, 118 Ga. 42 (2) ( 44 SE 859 ). 2.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Neal v. State
Birdsong v. State, 120 Ga. 850, 853 ( 48 SE 329 ); Austin v. State, 89 Ga. App. 866, 868 ( 81 SE2d 508 ); Prather v. State, 116 Ga. App. 696 ( 158 SE2d 291 ). 2.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Stanley v. State
Rivers v. State, 118 Ga. 42 (2) ( 44 SE 859 ) ; Birdsong v. State, 120 Ga. 850, 852 (3) ( 48 SE 329 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Taylor v. State
“An accomplice is one who is present at the commission of the crime, aiding and abetting the perpetrator. ‘Criminal intent is a necessary ingredient of crime, and is an essential to render one an accomplice.’ Applying these principles of law to the facts of the present case, there was no witness for the State who was an accomplice in the commission of the crime charged against the accused; and it was not error for the court to fail to charge ‘the law relating to conviction upon the evidence of an accomplice.’ Birdsong v. State, 120 Ga. 850, 854 ( 48 S. E. 329 ); Walker v. State, 118 …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Arkwright v. State
Cobb v. State, 76 Ga. 664 ; Birdsong v. State, 120 Ga. 850, 853 (supra); Rivers v. State, 118 Ga. 42, 45 (supra); Waldrop v. State, 47 Ga. App. 849 ( 171 S. E. 840 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Waldrop v. State
It is true, knowl edge is the essence of the offense, and without it there can be no conviction; but knowledge may well be deduced from conduct and behavior, the character of the person from whom received, and the kind of goods, and the hour when received; and as in this case at bar, these may carry conviction of guilty knowledge.” This rule has been followed in Birdsong v. State, 120 Ga. 850, 853 ( 48 S. E. 329 ), and in numerous other cases decided by the appellate courts of this State.
discussed
Cited "see"
Selvidge v. State
Applying the traditional definition of an accomplice — one who is a party to the crime, Kilgore v. State, 251 Ga. 291 (l)(a) ( 305 SE2d 82 ) (1983); Moore v. State, 240 Ga. 210 (1) ( 240 SE2d 68 ) (1977); Ford v. State, 232 Ga. 511 (7) ( 207 SE2d 494 ) (1974) — and relying upon the general rule that a thief and the receiver of the goods he has stolen are not accomplices within the meaning of OCGA § 24-4-8 (Code Ann. § 38-121), see Springer v. State, 102 Ga. 447 (1)(2) ( 30 SE 971 ) (1897); Harris v. State, 67 Ga. App. 446 (4) ( 20 SE2d 434 ) (1942), cited in Selvidge, supra at 83 ; accor…
cited
Cited "see"
Garrett v. State
See Birdsong v. State, 120 Ga. 850, 852 (3) ( 48 SE 329 ) (1904).
cited
Cited "see"
Law v. State
See Birdsong v. State, 120 Ga. 850 (3) ( 48 SE 329 ); Williams v. State, 16 Ga. App. 697 (6) ( 85 SE 973 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Staffins v. State
See Birdsong v. State, 120 Ga. 850 ( 48 S. E. 329 ); Williams v. State, 16 Ga. App. 698 ( 85 S. E. 973 ).” Counsel for the defendants, in connection with this same point, call our attention to Austin v. State, 89 Ga. App. 866 ( 81 S. E. 2d 508 ).
cited
Cited "see"
Bird v. State
See Birdsong v. State, 120 Ga. 850 ( 48 S. E. 329 ); Williams v. State, 16 Ga. App. 698 ( 85 S. E. 973 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Turner
v.
State
v.
State
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Aug 9, 1904.
P. A. Hendricks, for plaintiff in error., W. E. Thomas, solicitor-general, contra.
Cobb.
Published
Cobb, J.
1. The answer of the county judge to the writ of certiorari sufficiently, verified the averments of the petition, as well as the accusation which was attached thereto as an exhibit.
2.While the evidence authorized a finding that the accused had been gui|ty of an unlawful act of violence, it did not appear that this act was committed in concert with any other person or as a result of a conspiracy, and therefore a conviction for riot was unauthorized, and the judge erred in overruling the certiorari. Judgment reversed.
All the Justices concur.