Bray v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bray v. State

155 S.E. 776, 42 Ga. App. 284, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 349

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 11, 1930

Docket20816

StatusPublished

This text of 155 S.E. 776 (Bray 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

Bray v. State, 155 S.E. 776, 42 Ga. App. 284, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 349 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The accused was convicted of stealing an automobile. The evidence connecting him with the crime was wholly circumstantial and was not sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. A theory was raised by the evidence that the automobile was never stolen by any one, but that it was carried off and concealed by some agent of the owner of the car for the purpose of allowing the owner to collect the insurance thereon. That theory, under all the facts of the case, was a reasonable hypothesis, and was not excluded by the evidence adduced. Furthermore, upon the trial of the case, there were raised other reasonable hypotheses of the innocence of the accused which were not excluded by the evidence. It follows that the verdict was unauthorized and that the refusal to grant a new trial was error.

In view of this ruling it is unnecessary to pass upon the special assignments of error.

tJudgment reversed.

Lulce and Bloodworih, JJ., concur. Shackelford & Shackelford, 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

Broyles, C. J.

The accused was convicted of stealing an automobile. The evidence connecting him with the crime was wholly circumstantial and was not sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. A theory was raised by the evidence that the automobile was never stolen by any one, but that it was carried off and concealed by some agent of the owner of the car for the purpose of allowing the owner to collect the insurance thereon. That theory, under all the facts of the case, was a reasonable hypothesis, and was not excluded by the evidence adduced. Furthermore, upon the trial of the case, there were raised other reasonable hypotheses of the innocence of the accused which were not excluded by the evidence. It follows that the verdict was unauthorized and that the refusal to grant a new trial was error.

In view of this ruling it is unnecessary to pass upon the special assignments of error.

tJudgment reversed.

Lulce and Bloodworih, JJ., concur. Shackelford & Shackelford, for plaintiff in error. Henry H. West, solicitor-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 S.E. 776, 42 Ga. App. 284, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bray-v-state-gactapp-1930.