Blalock v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Blalock v. State

183 S.E. 215, 52 Ga. App. 381, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 638

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 10, 1936

Docket25325

StatusPublished

This text of 183 S.E. 215 (Blalock 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.

Bluebook

Blalock v. State, 183 S.E. 215, 52 Ga. App. 381, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 638 (Ga. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

G-uerry, J.

While it is true that the evidence which tended to connect the defendant with the larceny of certain goods was entirely circumstantial, and he made an explanation as to Ms having more cottonseed to sell than were raised by him (cottonseed being one of the articles alleged to have been stolen), this court can not say that, such evidence, even when taken in connection with the defendant’s statement, (which, of course, the jury had a right to and did reject), was not sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save Ms guilt. The assignments of error are without merit; and this court finds no reason to reverse the judgment overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and M-acIniyre, J., concur. E. W. Roberts, for plaintiff in error. Henry H. West, solicitor-general, contra.

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

G-uerry, J.

While it is true that the evidence which tended to connect the defendant with the larceny of certain goods was entirely circumstantial, and he made an explanation as to Ms having more cottonseed to sell than were raised by him (cottonseed being one of the articles alleged to have been stolen), this court can not say that, such evidence, even when taken in connection with the defendant’s statement, (which, of course, the jury had a right to and did reject), was not sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save Ms guilt. The assignments of error are without merit; and this court finds no reason to reverse the judgment overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and M-acIniyre, J., concur. E. W. Roberts, for plaintiff in error. Henry H. West, solicitor-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 S.E. 215, 52 Ga. App. 381, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blalock-v-state-gactapp-1936.