Gibbs v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Gibbs v. State

113 S.E. 107, 29 Ga. App. 55, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 54

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided July 25, 1922·No. 13737·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The circumstantial evidence relied upon to convict the defendant was not sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt, and therefore the court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial.

■Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. Smith & Christian, for plaintiff in error,

cited: 25 Ga. App. 427; 27 Ga. App. 581; Id. 582; Id. 603.

R. JE. Dinsmore, contra,

cited: 55 Ga. 326 (6); 59 Ga. 738 (6); 73 Ga. 76 (1).

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

Broyles, C. J.

The circumstantial evidence relied upon to convict the defendant was not sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt, and therefore the court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial.

■Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. Smith & Christian, for plaintiff in error,

cited: 25 Ga. App. 427; 27 Ga. App. 581; Id. 582; Id. 603.

R. JE. Dinsmore, contra,

cited: 55 Ga. 326 (6); 59 Ga. 738 (6); 73 Ga. 76 (1).

Gibbs v. State, 113 S.E. 107, 29 Ga. App. 55, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 54 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

113 S.E. 107 (Gibbs v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related