Cleary v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cleary v. State

143 S.E. 904, 38 Ga. App. 365, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 235

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 10, 1928

Docket19025

StatusPublished

This text of 143 S.E. 904 (Cleary 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

Cleary v. State, 143 S.E. 904, 38 Ga. App. 365, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 235 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The charge of the court is not subject to exception because of the alleged errors of commission and omission as set forth in the motion for a new trial. It fairly presented the issues to the jury; and if more detailed instructions were desired by the plaintiff in error, they should have been called for by appropriate written requests.

2. The evidence, although circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendant’s guilt.

Judgment affirmed.

Luhe cmd Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The charge of the court is not subject to exception because of the alleged errors of commission and omission as set forth in the motion for a new trial. It fairly presented the issues to the jury; and if more detailed instructions were desired by the plaintiff in error, they should have been called for by appropriate written requests.

2. The evidence, although circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendant’s guilt.

Judgment affirmed.

Luhe cmd Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 S.E. 904, 38 Ga. App. 365, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cleary-v-state-gactapp-1928.