Aikens v. State
This text of 196 S.E. 263 (Aikens v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The special grounds of the motion for new trial are abandoned in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error. The evidence, while circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis, save the guilt of the accused. Whittemore v. State, 36 Ga. App. 299 (136 S. E. 806); Lamb v. State, 36 Ga. App. 306 (136 S. E. 306); Wynn v. State, 38 Ga. App. 262 (143 S. E. 599); Williams v. State, 41 Ga. App. 351 (152 S. E. 911); Johnson v. State, 41 Ga. App. 327 (152 S. E. 920); Craig v. State, 41 Ga. App. 225 (152 S. E. 494); Cook v. State, 33 Ga. App. 571 (2) (127 S. E. 156); Hale v. State, 50 [536]*536Ga. App. 99 (176 S. E. 919). The case of Wright v. State, 48 Ga. App. 302 (172 S. E. 687), is differentiated on. its facts from the present case.
Judgment affii-med.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
196 S.E. 263, 57 Ga. App. 535, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aikens-v-state-gactapp-1938.