Guest v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Guest v. State

146 S.E. 349, 39 Ga. App. 137, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 221

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 15, 1929

Docket19341

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 146 S.E. 349 (Guest 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

Guest v. State, 146 S.E. 349, 39 Ga. App. 137, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 221 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

The defendant was convicted of hog stealing. There was no direct evidence that he or any one else stole the hog in question. The evidence as to his stealing it was entirely circumstantial, and, under the facts of this case, the court erred, as alleged in the 6th special ground of the motion for a new trial, in failing to instruct the jury as to the amount and character of proof necessary to warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence. Hamilton v. State, 96 Ga. 301 (22 S. E. 528); Harris v. State, 18 Ga. App. 710 (90 S. E. 370), and cases cited in the opinion; Walker v. State, 31 Ga. App. 519 (120 S. E. 130). This error requires the grant of a new trial.

In view of the foregoing ruling and the nature of the other alleged errors, it will not be necéssary to pass upon them.

Judgment reversed.

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

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

Bloodworth, J.

The defendant was convicted of hog stealing. There was no direct evidence that he or any one else stole the hog in question. The evidence as to his stealing it was entirely circumstantial, and, under the facts of this case, the court erred, as alleged in the 6th special ground of the motion for a new trial, in failing to instruct the jury as to the amount and character of proof necessary to warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence. Hamilton v. State, 96 Ga. 301 (22 S. E. 528); Harris v. State, 18 Ga. App. 710 (90 S. E. 370), and cases cited in the opinion; Walker v. State, 31 Ga. App. 519 (120 S. E. 130). This error requires the grant of a new trial.

In view of the foregoing ruling and the nature of the other alleged errors, it will not be necéssary to pass upon them.

Judgment reversed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 S.E. 349, 39 Ga. App. 137, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guest-v-state-gactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack