Case Name: Moultry v. The State
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1892-05-16
Citations: 89 Ga. 291
Docket Number: 
Parties: Moultry v. The State.
Judges: By two Justices.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 89
Pages: 291–294

Head Matter:
Moultry v. The State.
Two men walking together along the street of a city, one of them went through an open door into a house and brought out an overcoat, the other waiting for him or else walking on slowly; the one who took the coat rejoined the other, put on the coat, and they walked down the street together ; being pursued and the cry “You stole that coat!” heard, the coat was pulled off and thrown down in the street, and he who. had it ran, the other did not run; but in an hour afterwards the two were again seen to gether: Held, that this evidence, though not altogether satisfactory to the minds of the reviewing court, is sufficient to warrant the jury in finding that the one who did not enter the house was an accomplice of the other and was guilty equally with him of the larceny, the coat having been in fact stolen, and the presiding judge having approved the verdict.
May 16, 1892.
By two Justices.
Criminal law. Larceny. Accomplice. Before Judge Westmoreland. Criminal court of Atlanta. September term, 1891.
Moultry was tried upon an accusation of larceny from tbe house. He was found guilty ; bis motion for new trial was overruled, and be excepted. Tbe motion contained tbe grounds that tbe verdict was contrary to law, evidence, etc.; that tbe court erred in refusing to charge tbe jury, as requested by defendant’s counsel during his argument, tbe rule of law as to circumstantial evidence, to the effect that to authorize tbe jury to convict upon circumstantial evidence, tbe evidence must be .such as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of tbe guilt of tbe accused ; and that tbe court erred in charging : “If you are satisfied from tbe evidence, that tbe defendant went in company with another (Moses Greer) to tbe residence of tbe prosecutor, with tbe common intent to steal, and that the property, as described in tbe accusation, was taken from the bouse of tbe prosecutor with tbe intent to steal the same by Moses Greer, and tbe defendant' remained outside watching, abetting and aiding in tbe theft, be would be equally guilty with Greer, and you would be authorized so to find.”
The evidence, briefly stated, was: A servant of tbe prosecutor left tbe front door of bis bouse open, and going back to shut it missed the coat. She looked out the window and saw defendant and another come across tbe door, saw the door was open and tbe overcoat gone. Seeing defendant and tbe other near, she ran out in pursuit of them. She saw tbe person who was with de fendant with the overcoat on, and called to him that he had stolen that coat; he pulled it off, threw it down on the sidewalk and ran away. As she came up to where defendant and the man with the coat on him had been, she picked up a rock and told defendant not to touch that coat, and then ran on in pursuit of the one who had pulled off the overcoat, but he got away. She could not say that defendant made any attempt to take the overcoat. Defendant did not interfere with her in any way, nor did he attempt to escape. He told her by going around the square another way she could probably head off the man, Moses Greer, who had pulled off the overcoat and run away. About an hour later she saw defendant and the other man coming along together and reported them to the police.

Opinion:
Judgment affirmed.
The defendant stated: He had been out to where some work was going on to see if he could get a job, but had failed. He met up with Moses Greer and they came along together until they got to a house where Greer said he was going in, that a girl had told him there was an overcoat there they wanted to sell. Defendant went on towards the corner of the street and soon saw Greer coming with an overcoat. When he got to the corner where defendant was he put it on, and they started along the street and had gone but a short distance when they heard a woman who had just turned the street corner, calling out, "You stole that coat!" He called the other's attention to the woman and asked him what she meant, who, as soon as he saw the woman coming and calling out that way, pulled off the coat and ran away. The woman stopped and picked up a rock before she came to where defendant was standing near the overcoat, and told him not to touch that coat. She, pursued the other fellow but could not overtake him. Defendant told her, if she would turn around the corner the other way she might head him ofi. She then took the overcoat and carried it back. That is all defendant knows about it. He did not go into the house when the other fellow took the overcoat, had no idea he was going in there to steal an overcoat or anything else, as he had told defendant he was g-oingin there to look at an overcoat a girl had told him they wanted to sell.
George S. Thomas, for plaintiff in error.
Lewis W. Thomas, solicitor, contra.