Cranford v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cranford v. State

82 S.E. 356, 15 Ga. App. 15, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 3

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 21, 1914

Docket5711

StatusPublished

This text of 82 S.E. 356 (Cranford 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

Cranford v. State, 82 S.E. 356, 15 Ga. App. 15, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 3 (Ga. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

1. To warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the proved facts must not only be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, but must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. Penal Code, § 1010. The evidence against the accused was entirely circumstantial, and, while it may raise a suspicion of . his guilt, was wholly insufficient (even though viewed in the light most adverse to him) to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt. It was therefore error to refuse a new trial.

2. The decision of this court being controlled. by the conclusion that the evidence was wholly insufficient to authorize a conviction, it would be profitless to consider assignments of error as to the charge of the court and rulings at the trial. Judgment reversed.

Roan, J.,- absent.

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

Russell, C. J.

1. To warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the proved facts must not only be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, but must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. Penal Code, § 1010. The evidence against the accused was entirely circumstantial, and, while it may raise a suspicion of . his guilt, was wholly insufficient (even though viewed in the light most adverse to him) to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt. It was therefore error to refuse a new trial.

2. The decision of this court being controlled. by the conclusion that the evidence was wholly insufficient to authorize a conviction, it would be profitless to consider assignments of error as to the charge of the court and rulings at the trial. Judgment reversed.

Roan, J.,- absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 S.E. 356, 15 Ga. App. 15, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cranford-v-state-gactapp-1914.