Harden v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Harden v. State

78 S.E. 681, 13 Ga. App. 34, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 20

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 25, 1913

Docket4913

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 78 S.E. 681 (Harden 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

Harden v. State, 78 S.E. 681, 13 Ga. App. 34, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 20 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, J.

1. In the absence of an appropriate request, the court is not required, in the trial of one charged with the offense of larceny, to call the attention of the jury to specific facts or circumstances adduced in the evidence, which might indicate the innocence of the accused. For this reason the court did not err in omitting to call the special attention of the jury to evidence in the record tending to show'that the defendant’s possession of the hog in question was bona fide and under a fair claim of right.

2. Where the proof of guilt of one accused of crime depends wholly upon circumstantial evidence, it is error for the trial judge to fail to instruct the jury that to warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the proof not only must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, but must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused (Penal Code, § 1010). It is his duty so to instruct the jury even though there be no request to that effect. Riley v. State, 1 Ga. App. 651 (57 S. E. 1031); Hamilton v. State, 96 Ga. 301 (22 S. E. 528); Jones v. State, 105 Ga. 649 (31 S. E. 574); Toler v. State, 107 Ga. 682 (33 S. E. 629); McElroy v. State, 125 Ga. 39 (53 S. E. 759); Weaver v. State, 135 Ga. 320 (69 S. E. 488), and cit. Judgment reversed.

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

Russell, J.

1. In the absence of an appropriate request, the court is not required, in the trial of one charged with the offense of larceny, to call the attention of the jury to specific facts or circumstances adduced in the evidence, which might indicate the innocence of the accused. For this reason the court did not err in omitting to call the special attention of the jury to evidence in the record tending to show'that the defendant’s possession of the hog in question was bona fide and under a fair claim of right.

2. Where the proof of guilt of one accused of crime depends wholly upon circumstantial evidence, it is error for the trial judge to fail to instruct the jury that to warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the proof not only must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, but must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused (Penal Code, § 1010). It is his duty so to instruct the jury even though there be no request to that effect. Riley v. State, 1 Ga. App. 651 (57 S. E. 1031); Hamilton v. State, 96 Ga. 301 (22 S. E. 528); Jones v. State, 105 Ga. 649 (31 S. E. 574); Toler v. State, 107 Ga. 682 (33 S. E. 629); McElroy v. State, 125 Ga. 39 (53 S. E. 759); Weaver v. State, 135 Ga. 320 (69 S. E. 488), and cit. Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 S.E. 681, 13 Ga. App. 34, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harden-v-state-gactapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack