Fennell v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Fennell v. State

175 S.E. 272, 49 Ga. App. 305, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 373

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 26, 1934

Docket24105

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 175 S.E. 272 (Fennell 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

Fennell v. State, 175 S.E. 272, 49 Ga. App. 305, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 373 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The amendment to the motion for a new trial is based upon the alleged newly discovered evidence of O. O. Cannon, but no affidavit as to his “residence, associates, means of knowledge, character, and credibility,” as required by section 6086 of the Civil Code of 1910, was presented by the movant, and the court, therefore, did not err in refusing to grant a new trial on this ground. Ivey v. State, 154 Ga. 63 (6) (113 S. E. 175).

2. The evidence connecting the accused with the offense charged (simple larceny), while circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt; and, the finding of the jury having been approved by the trial judge, and no error of law appearing, this court is without authority to interfere. Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The amendment to the motion for a new trial is based upon the alleged newly discovered evidence of O. O. Cannon, but no affidavit as to his “residence, associates, means of knowledge, character, and credibility,” as required by section 6086 of the Civil Code of 1910, was presented by the movant, and the court, therefore, did not err in refusing to grant a new trial on this ground. Ivey v. State, 154 Ga. 63 (6) (113 S. E. 175).

2. The evidence connecting the accused with the offense charged (simple larceny), while circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt; and, the finding of the jury having been approved by the trial judge, and no error of law appearing, this court is without authority to interfere. Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 S.E. 272, 49 Ga. App. 305, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fennell-v-state-gactapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack