Burke v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Burke v. State

189 S.E. 516, 183 Ga. 726, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 382

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 15, 1937

DocketNo. 11567

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 189 S.E. 516 (Burke v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burke v. State, 189 S.E. 516, 183 Ga. 726, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 382 (Ga. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, Justice.

In this ease no complaint is made of any error of law committed at the trial. The evidence, though entirely circumstantial as to identity of the defendants as perpetrators of the crime, was sufficient to support the verdict, and the discretion of the court in refusing a new trial will not be disturbed. The ease differs on its facts from Wells v. Stale, 97 Gu. 209 (22 S. E. 958), and Young v. State, 121 Ga. 334 (49 S. E. 256), where applying the principles now stated in the Code, § 38-109, relating to sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, it was held the evidence in those cases was ■ insufficient to support a conviction.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. B. W. Franlclm and M. Harry Bteine, for plaintiffs in error. M. J. Yeomans, attorney-general-, George Hains, solicitor-general, B. D. Murphy, and F. J. Glower, contra.

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

Atkinson, Justice.

In this ease no complaint is made of any error of law committed at the trial. The evidence, though entirely circumstantial as to identity of the defendants as perpetrators of the crime, was sufficient to support the verdict, and the discretion of the court in refusing a new trial will not be disturbed. The ease differs on its facts from Wells v. Stale, 97 Gu. 209 (22 S. E. 958), and Young v. State, 121 Ga. 334 (49 S. E. 256), where applying the principles now stated in the Code, § 38-109, relating to sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, it was held the evidence in those cases was ■ insufficient to support a conviction.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. B. W. Franlclm and M. Harry Bteine, for plaintiffs in error. M. J. Yeomans, attorney-general-, George Hains, solicitor-general, B. D. Murphy, and F. J. Glower, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 S.E. 516, 183 Ga. 726, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burke-v-state-ga-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack