Case ID: ga-app_36/html/0654-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bloodworth, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

17916.
    Moncrief et al v. The State.
    Decided April 12, 1927.
    Eiot; from Lanier superior court — Judge Highsmith. December 22, 1926.
    
      M. F. Johnson, W.. D. Buie, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      II. C. Morgan, solicitor-general, contra.
    Criminal Law, 16 C. J. p. 1217, n. 45; 17 C. J. p. 202, n.' 76.
    Riot, 34 Cyc. p. 1786, n. 3.
   Bloodworth, J.

The motion for a new trial contains only the usual general grounds and grounds merely elaborating those grounds. “The evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury to infer that the criminal act of violence set out in the indictment was committed by the accused in pursuance of a common intent; and, in the absence of complaint of any error of law, the conviction for riot must be sustained.” Grier v. State, 11 Ga. App. 767 (2) (76 S. E. 70). The principle announced in the foregoing ruling is controlling in this case. See also Walker v. State, 17 Ga. App. 525 (87 S. E. 711); Lewis v. State, 2 Ga. App. 659 (58 S. E. 1070); Jemley v. State, 121 Ga. 346 (49 S. E. 292).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., eonour.