Folds v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Folds v. State

152 S.E. 601, 41 Ga. App. 305, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 554

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 5, 1930

Docket20267

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 152 S.E. 601 (Folds 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

Folds v. State, 152 S.E. 601, 41 Ga. App. 305, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 554 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Bt.oodwortii, J.

1. The evidence connecting the defendant with the offense charged is purely circumstantial. After a careful review of the evidence this court will not say that it was insufficient to authorize the [306]*306jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendant’s guilt. “Questions of fact are for the jury, especially in cases of circumstantial evidence; and where no error of law has been committed, and the court has submitted to them the law in regard to such evidence and no complaint is made about the charge in this respect, and there is ample evidence to authorize the finding, this court will not interfere — the verdict being neither against the law nor the evidence.” Fraser v. State, 55 Ga. 326 (6). See Curles v. State, 28 Ga. App. 673 (112 S. E. 740).

Decided March 5, 1930. D. C. Ghalher, for plaintiff in error. M. H. Boyer, solicitor-general, contra.

2. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and, the finding of the jury having been approved by the trial court, this court is without authority to interfere. Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bt.oodwortii, J.

1. The evidence connecting the defendant with the offense charged is purely circumstantial. After a careful review of the evidence this court will not say that it was insufficient to authorize the [306]*306jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendant’s guilt. “Questions of fact are for the jury, especially in cases of circumstantial evidence; and where no error of law has been committed, and the court has submitted to them the law in regard to such evidence and no complaint is made about the charge in this respect, and there is ample evidence to authorize the finding, this court will not interfere — the verdict being neither against the law nor the evidence.” Fraser v. State, 55 Ga. 326 (6). See Curles v. State, 28 Ga. App. 673 (112 S. E. 740).

Decided March 5, 1930. D. C. Ghalher, for plaintiff in error. M. H. Boyer, solicitor-general, contra.

2. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and, the finding of the jury having been approved by the trial court, this court is without authority to interfere. Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 S.E. 601, 41 Ga. App. 305, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/folds-v-state-gactapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack