Fuller v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Fuller v. State

120 S.E. 17, 31 Ga. App. 178, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 822

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Fuller v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 33 Ga. App. 372 →

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided November 15, 1923·No. 14943·Published

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The corpus delicti was sufficiently proved; and this court cannot hold as a matter of law that the jury were not authorized to find that the evidence, while wholly circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendant’s guilt. It follows that the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial, which contained only the usual general grounds.

Judgment affirmed,.

Luke and Bloochoorih, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The corpus delicti was sufficiently proved; and this court cannot hold as a matter of law that the jury were not authorized to find that the evidence, while wholly circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendant’s guilt. It follows that the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial, which contained only the usual general grounds.

Judgment affirmed,.

Luke and Bloochoorih, JJ., concur.

Fuller v. State, 120 S.E. 17, 31 Ga. App. 178, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 822 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

120 S.E. 17 (Fuller v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.