Butler v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Butler v. State

169 S.E. 760, 47 Ga. App. 56, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 289

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 27, 1933

Docket23072

StatusPublished

This text of 169 S.E. 760 (Butler 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

Butler v. State, 169 S.E. 760, 47 Ga. App. 56, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 289 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The evidence connecting the defendant with the offense charged being wholly circumstantial, the failure of the court to instruct the jury upon the law of circumstantial evidence, even in the absence of a timely and appropriate written request, was error, (a) The principle of the law of circumstantial evidence was not sufficiently presented by the charge of the court; and therefore the ease is distinguished from Hendrix v. State, 24 Ga. App. 56 (100 S. E. 55), cited in the brief of counsel for the State.

2. The other special grounds of the motion for a new trial (several of which are too incomplete to be considered) show no error.

3. As a new trial must be had because of the error specified above, the question as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict is not now passed upon.

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur. Hamilton Burch, for plaintiff in error. G. J. Taylor, solicitor, contra.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The evidence connecting the defendant with the offense charged being wholly circumstantial, the failure of the court to instruct the jury upon the law of circumstantial evidence, even in the absence of a timely and appropriate written request, was error, (a) The principle of the law of circumstantial evidence was not sufficiently presented by the charge of the court; and therefore the ease is distinguished from Hendrix v. State, 24 Ga. App. 56 (100 S. E. 55), cited in the brief of counsel for the State.

2. The other special grounds of the motion for a new trial (several of which are too incomplete to be considered) show no error.

3. As a new trial must be had because of the error specified above, the question as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict is not now passed upon.

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur. Hamilton Burch, for plaintiff in error. G. J. Taylor, solicitor, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 S.E. 760, 47 Ga. App. 56, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butler-v-state-gactapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack