Dominick v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Dominick v. State

18 S.E.2d 502, 66 Ga. App. 531, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 207

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 14, 1942

Docket29334.

StatusPublished

This text of 18 S.E.2d 502 (Dominick 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

Dominick v. State, 18 S.E.2d 502, 66 Ga. App. 531, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 207 (Ga. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of burglary; his motion for a new trial was denied, and that judgment was assigned as error. The evidence connecting him with the crime was wholly circumstantial, but it was amply sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial which embraced the general grounds only. “Whether dependent upon positive or circumstantial evidence, the true question in criminal cases is, not whether it be possible that the conclusion at which the testimony points may he false, hut whether there he sufficient evidence to satisfy the mind and conscience beyond a reasonable doubt.” Code, § 38-110. The three cases cited in behalf of the accused are differentiated by their particular facts from this case.

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.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of burglary; his motion for a new trial was denied, and that judgment was assigned as error. The evidence connecting him with the crime was wholly circumstantial, but it was amply sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial which embraced the general grounds only. “Whether dependent upon positive or circumstantial evidence, the true question in criminal cases is, not whether it be possible that the conclusion at which the testimony points may he false, hut whether there he sufficient evidence to satisfy the mind and conscience beyond a reasonable doubt.” Code, § 38-110. The three cases cited in behalf of the accused are differentiated by their particular facts from this case.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 S.E.2d 502, 66 Ga. App. 531, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dominick-v-state-gactapp-1942.