Golden v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Golden v. State

177 S.E. 511, 179 Ga. 767, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 400

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided November 17, 1934·No. No. 10381·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to support the verdict. There is no merit in the special grounds of the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices cononr, except Russell, G. J., and Sutcheson, J., who dissent. '■ M. J. Yeomans, allorney-general, W. O. Forehand, solicitor-geneneral, B. D. Murphy and J. T. Goree, assistant attorneys-general, Philip Newbern, and Levy Rogers, contra.

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

Per Curiam.

The evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to support the verdict. There is no merit in the special grounds of the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices cononr, except Russell, G. J., and Sutcheson, J., who dissent. '■ M. J. Yeomans, allorney-general, W. O. Forehand, solicitor-geneneral, B. D. Murphy and J. T. Goree, assistant attorneys-general, Philip Newbern, and Levy Rogers, contra.

Golden v. State, 177 S.E. 511, 179 Ga. 767, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 400 (Ga. 1934).

Pincite

177 S.E. 511 (Golden v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.