Burrell v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Burrell v. State

28 S.E.2d 822, 70 Ga. App. 534, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 35

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 29, 1944

Docket30379.

StatusPublished

This text of 28 S.E.2d 822 (Burrell 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

Burrell v. State, 28 S.E.2d 822, 70 Ga. App. 534, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 35 (Ga. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

Ray Burrell and Ralph Burrell were convicted of the offense of arson. The evidence amply authorized the jury to find that the house in question was set on fire and burned by some criminal agency. Therefore, the corpus delicti was proved. The evidence connecting the defendants with the crime, while circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis save that of their guilt. The cases cited in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error are differentiated by their particular facts from this case. The overruling of the motion for new trial, based 'solely upon the general grounds, was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

Ray Burrell and Ralph Burrell were convicted of the offense of arson. The evidence amply authorized the jury to find that the house in question was set on fire and burned by some criminal agency. Therefore, the corpus delicti was proved. The evidence connecting the defendants with the crime, while circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis save that of their guilt. The cases cited in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error are differentiated by their particular facts from this case. The overruling of the motion for new trial, based 'solely upon the general grounds, was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 S.E.2d 822, 70 Ga. App. 534, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burrell-v-state-gactapp-1944.