Dowdy v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Dowdy v. State

162 S.E. 155, 44 Ga. App. 569, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 380

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 12, 1932

Docket21946

StatusPublished

This text of 162 S.E. 155 (Dowdy 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

Dowdy v. State, 162 S.E. 155, 44 Ga. App. 569, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 380 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The excerpt from the charge of the court, complained of in the motion for a new trial, upon the subject of principals in the first and second degrees, was not technically accurate, since all persons aiding and abetting in the commission of a misdemeanor are principals, and in misdemeanors there are no principals in the “first” or “second” degree. Under the facts of the case, however, this inaccuracy affords no cause for a reversal of the judgment. See Smith v. State, 23 Ga. App. 140 (2) (98 S. E. 115).

2. The evidence connecting the defendant with the offense charged was wholly circumstantial, but it was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt; and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

■Judgment affirmed.

TAlike, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of ilbiess.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The excerpt from the charge of the court, complained of in the motion for a new trial, upon the subject of principals in the first and second degrees, was not technically accurate, since all persons aiding and abetting in the commission of a misdemeanor are principals, and in misdemeanors there are no principals in the “first” or “second” degree. Under the facts of the case, however, this inaccuracy affords no cause for a reversal of the judgment. See Smith v. State, 23 Ga. App. 140 (2) (98 S. E. 115).

2. The evidence connecting the defendant with the offense charged was wholly circumstantial, but it was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt; and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

■Judgment affirmed.

TAlike, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of ilbiess.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 S.E. 155, 44 Ga. App. 569, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dowdy-v-state-gactapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack