Case Name: Hulsey v. The State
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1912-06-05
Citations: 11 Ga. App. 258
Docket Number: 4146
Parties: Hulsey v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 11
Pages: 258–259

Head Matter:
4146.
Hulsey v. The State.
Decided June 5, 1912.
Indictment for bigamy; from Haralson superior court — Judge Price Edwards. March 23, 1912.
The date of the indictment was November 28, 1911. It charged Hulsey with having committed the offense of bigamy on October 29, 1906, and alleged that from January, 1907, till August 1,' 1911, he absconded from this State and concealed himself so that he could not be arrested, and was absent from the State for the said period of time. In the motion for a new trial it is alleged that the court erred in charging the jury as follows: “The State does not have to establish this particular allegation, as to his being out of the State, beyond a reasonable doubt. It has to bring such evidence as makes what is called a prima facie case. And then it is incumbent on the other side — the defendant — to explain whether he was here, or whether that part of the bill of indictment is true; and if it is found not to be true, as I say, upon an investigation of it, if he shows you — he does not have to show you beyond a reasonable doubt — if he shows to your reasonable satisfaction that he was here and the statute has not run against him, then that prima facie case of the State would be overcome, and he would be entitled to an acquittal on that ground.”' It is also alleged that the court erred in charging: “The State makes out a case when it shows that he left the State and was gone. This may be shown by admissions and confessions on his part, if they are shown to have been made in connection with any evidence that he was not seen in this county by the officers, and not seen in the community where he formerly lived!”
Griffith & Matthews, for plaintiff in error.
J. R. Hutcheson, solicitor-general, contra.

Opinion:
Russell, J.
1. There was sufficient evidence to authorize the jury to find that the accused wag -absent from the State after the commission of the offense, so as to prevent the statute of limitations from running against the State.
2. As to the charge of the court on the statute of limitations, this case is controlled by the decision of this court in the case of Cohen v. State, 2 Ga. App. 689 (59 S. E. 4). Judgment affirmed.