Bennett v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bennett v. State

117 S.E. 250, 30 Ga. App. 107, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 281

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Bennett v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 28 Ga. App. 235 →

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided April 10, 1923·No. 14179·Published

Opinion

Luke, J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of burglary. The conviction was dependent wholly upon circumstantial evidence. Erom a careful examination of the record in this case, we are of the opinion that the evidence is not sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than that of the defendant’s guilt. It was error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Luke, J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of burglary. The conviction was dependent wholly upon circumstantial evidence. Erom a careful examination of the record in this case, we are of the opinion that the evidence is not sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than that of the defendant’s guilt. It was error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Bennett v. State, 117 S.E. 250, 30 Ga. App. 107, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 281 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

117 S.E. 250 (Bennett v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.