Dorsey v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Dorsey v. State

104 S.E. 442, 150 Ga. 637, 1920 Ga. LEXIS 266

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided October 13, 1920·No. No. 2134·Published

Opinion

George, J.

This was a prosecution for homicide. The case against the accused depended solely upon circumstantial evidence. The motion for new trial contains only the usual general grounds. Held, that the evidence, though circumstantial, is sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of .the guilt .of the accused, and the court did not err in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Terrell. Carroll superior court. June 15, 1920.

Smith & Smith, for plaintiff in error. R. A. Denny, attorney-general, G. E. Boop, solicitor-general, and Graham Wright, contra.

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

George, J.

This was a prosecution for homicide. The case against the accused depended solely upon circumstantial evidence. The motion for new trial contains only the usual general grounds. Held, that the evidence, though circumstantial, is sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of .the guilt .of the accused, and the court did not err in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Terrell. Carroll superior court. June 15, 1920.

Smith & Smith, for plaintiff in error. R. A. Denny, attorney-general, G. E. Boop, solicitor-general, and Graham Wright, contra.

Dorsey v. State, 104 S.E. 442, 150 Ga. 637, 1920 Ga. LEXIS 266 (Ga. 1920).

Pincite

104 S.E. 442 (Dorsey v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.