Douglas v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Douglas v. State

79 S.E. 1134, 14 Ga. App. 14, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 384

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 25, 1913

Docket5225

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 79 S.E. 1134 (Douglas 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

Douglas v. State, 79 S.E. 1134, 14 Ga. App. 14, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 384 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Pottle, J.

1. The following charge to the jury was not erroneous as tending to deny their right to believe a part of the prisoner’s statement and reject the remainder: “The prisoner’s statement is not made under oath, and it shall have such weight and effect as the jury sees fit to give it. The jury may believe it in preference to the sworn testimony in the case.”

2. The following excerpt from the charge of the court was complained of: “Is there any other reasonable hypothesis or explanation of the existence of all the facts that is consistent with the innocence of the accused? Can all these things be true and yet can we reasonably say he is innocent?” Error was assigned upon the ground that if some of the circumstances relied on by the State were untrue, there might have been an acquittal. This excerpt was not erroneous for the reason assigned.

3. The evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize the verdict. * Judgment affirmed.

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

Pottle, J.

1. The following charge to the jury was not erroneous as tending to deny their right to believe a part of the prisoner’s statement and reject the remainder: “The prisoner’s statement is not made under oath, and it shall have such weight and effect as the jury sees fit to give it. The jury may believe it in preference to the sworn testimony in the case.”

2. The following excerpt from the charge of the court was complained of: “Is there any other reasonable hypothesis or explanation of the existence of all the facts that is consistent with the innocence of the accused? Can all these things be true and yet can we reasonably say he is innocent?” Error was assigned upon the ground that if some of the circumstances relied on by the State were untrue, there might have been an acquittal. This excerpt was not erroneous for the reason assigned.

3. The evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize the verdict. * Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 S.E. 1134, 14 Ga. App. 14, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/douglas-v-state-gactapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack