Jenkins v. State, 171 S.E. 574 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933). · Go Syfert
Jenkins v. State, 171 S.E. 574 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
28 citation events across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Nix v. State (gactapp, 1956-07-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1934 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1934 1980 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nix v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1956 · confidence medium
“In criminal law, conspiracy is a combination or agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act, and may be established by proof of acts and conduct, as well as by direct proof or by express agreement.” Bolton v. State, 21 Ga. App. 184 (1) ( 94 S. E. 95 ); Jones v. State, 38 Ga. App. 266 (3) ( 143 S. E. 613 ), and cit.; Smith v. State, 47 Ga. App. 797, 802 ( 171 S. E. 578 ), and cit.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hawkins v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1949 · confidence medium
As was stated in Smith v. State, 47 Ga. App. 797, 802 ( 171 S. E. 578 ), “declarations made by one of the alleged conspirators after the commission of the crime contemplated by the conspiracy is admissible only against the one who makes it, and . . it must be considered as mere narrative of past occurrences as to the others; . . but it is also true that proof that a crime has been committed does not necessarily prove the end of the conspiracy so as to render acts and declarations of conspirators after that time inadmissible against other conspirators, for the conspiracy may be kept open for …
cited Cited as authority (rule) Stone v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1947 · confidence medium
Kirksey v. State, 11 Ga. App. 142 (2) ( 74 S. E. 902 ); Smith v. State, 47 Ga. App. 797, 802 ( 171 S. E. 578 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jenkins v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1946 · confidence medium
In Smith v. State, 47 Ga. App. 797, 803 ( 171 S. E. 578 ), this court said: “But it is also true that proof that a crime has been committed does not necessarily prove the end of the conspiracy so as to render acts and declarations of conspirators after that time inadmissible against other conspirators, for the conspiracy may be kept open for various purposes.” And such purposes may be for *517 the securing of the proceeds of the crime, the division of such proceeds, the concealment of evidence tending to incriminate the conspirators, influencing witnesses with respect to their testimony, t…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jones v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1940 · confidence medium
“Unless a conspiracy is shown prima facie, evidence of the acts and declaration of one of the alleged conspirators can only operate against the person whose acts and declarations are proved, if he is on trial; or, if he is not on trial, they are not admissible against the defendants on trial, and should be rejected.” Wall v. State, 153 Ga. 309, 317 ( 112 S. E. 142 ); Smith v. State, 47 Ga. App. 797, 801 ( 171 S. E. 578 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hurt v. State
Ga. · 1938 · confidence medium
Smith v. State, 47 Ga. App. 797, 803 ( 171 S. E. 578 ), and cit. 3.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wortham v. State
Ga. · 1937 · confidence medium
Coleman v. State, supra; Horton v. State, 66 Ga. 690, 693 ; Barrow v. State, 121 Ga. 187 (3) ( 48 S. E. 950 ); Tompkins v. State, 17 Ga. 356 ; McDaniel v. State, 103 Ga. 268 (3), 270 ( 30 S. E. 29 ); Smith v. State, 148 Ga. 332, 338 ( 96 S. E. 632 ); Wall v. State, 153 Ga. 309 (2) ( 112 S. E. 142 ); Smith v. State, 47 Ga. App. 797, 801 ( 171 S. E. 578 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bragg v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1935 · confidence medium
“The acts and conduct of one conspirator during the pendency of the wrongful act, not only in its actual perpetration, tut also in its subsequent concealment, were admissible against another conspirator.” Smith, v. State, 47 Ga. App. 797, 803 ( 171 S. E. 578 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wright v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1934 · confidence medium
“A conspiracy may be shown by circumstantial as well as direct evidence.” Carter v. State, 141 Ga. 308 ( 80 S. E. 995 ) ; Smith v. State, 47 Ga. App. 797, 802 ( 171 S. E. 578 ) ; Miller v. State, 176 Ga. 825 ( 169 S. E. 33 ). 2.
cited Cited "see" Thompson v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1938 · signal: see · confidence high
See citations in Smith v. State, 47 Ga. App. 797, 802 ( 171 S. E. 578 ).
discussed Cited "see" Gordon v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1934 · signal: see · confidence high
See, in this connection, Carroll v. State, 47 Ga. App. 781 ( 171 S. E. 574 ); Perkins v. State, 42 Ga. App. 356 ( 156 S. E. 289 ); Perry v. State, 38 Ga. App. 689 ( 145 S. E. 476 ); Smith v. State, 17 Ga. App. 118 ( 86 S. E. 283 ); Smith v. State, 34 Ga. App. 776 ( 131 S. E. 185 ); Parks v. State, 21 Ga. App. 506 ( 94 S. E. 628 ).
cited Cited "see" Grace v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1934 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. State, 47 Ga. App. 797 ( 171 S. E. 578 ).
Jenkins
v.
State
23443.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Nov 4, 1933.
171 S.E. 574
Glctxion & Claxlon, Rowland & Rowland, for plaintiff in error., J. A. Merritt, solicitor-general, contra.
Broyles, Guerry, MacIntyre.
Published
Broyles, C. J.

1. In this case it appearing that the bill of exceptions had been filed in the office of the clerk of the trial court more than fifteen days after its certification, the writ of error was dismissed. Thereafter a timely motion to reinstate the case was filed, and attached to the motion was a certificate from the clerk of the trial court showing that the entry of filing upon the bill of exceptions was a clerical error, and that the bill of exceptions was really filed in his office within fifteen days of its certification. The clerical error having been corrected by the clerk of the trial court, and it now appearing from- his certificate that the bill of exceptions was filed in his office within the required time, the judgment of dismissal is vacated, and the case is reinstated.

2. The defendant was convicted of hog stealing. The evidence tending to connect him with the offense was wholly circumstantial and was not sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. It follows that his conviction was unauthorized; and the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.