Case Name: Johnson vs. The State of Georgia
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1878-08
Citations: 61 Ga. 212
Docket Number: 
Parties: Johnson vs. The State of Georgia.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 61
Pages: 212–213

Head Matter:
Johnson vs. The State of Georgia.
1. A count for receiving stolen goods, knowing tkem to be stolen, may be joined in anlndietment with a count for simple larceny.
2. Tke verdict is sustained by sufficient evidence to convict the defendant.
Criminal law. Indictment. New trial. Before Judge Clark. City Court of Atlanta. March. Term, 1878.
To the report contained in the opinion it is only necessary to add the following:
Eliza Johnson was arraigned on nn accusation containing two counts, one for simple larceny, the other for receiving stolen goods. She was tried, convicted, and moved in arrest of judgment because of misjoinder of counts. The motion was overruled. She then moved for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence. It was refused, and she excepted.
Gartrell & Wright ; S. B. Spencer, for plaintiff in error,
cited as follows : On misjoinder, Code, §§4488-4489 ; 42 Ga., 223-225 ; 45 Ib., 569 ; 56 Ib., 92 ; 46 Ib., 208-210 ; 10 Ib., 59 ; 11 Ib., 95 ; 1 Chit. Cr. L., 254 ; Code, §§4552. On sufficiency of evidence, 58 Ga., 554; 56 Ib., 28.
Howard Van Epps, city solicitor, for the state,
cited, on joinder of counts, 2 Am. Cr. L., §1903; 1 Ib., §419; Hopkins’ An. Penal Code, §1514.

Opinion:
Jackson Justice.
But two grounds are taken in the motion for a new trial:
That a count for receiving stolen goods cannot be joined in the same indictment with a count for simple larceny. Both are misdemeanors — both of the same nature, and they may both be joined in the same indictment. See authorities cited by solicitor general: Am. Grim. Law, §1904, vol. 2 ; §419, vol. 1; Hopkins' An. Penal Code, §1514.
The evidence was conflicting ; but there is enough to support the verdict; the judge who tried the case approves the finding, and our well settled rule in such cases is not to interfere. No complaint is made of the charge or rulings of the court, and the verdict is not contrary to law or to evidence.
Judgment affirmed.