Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Hill v. State

Hill v. State

110 S.E. 629, 27 Ga. App. 611, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 307
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hill v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 28 Ga. App. 459 →
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided November 16, 1921·No. 12714·Published

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The motion for a new trial contains only the [613]*613usual general grounds, and the evidence, while circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude, every reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendant’s guilt. It was therefore not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

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

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

Hill v. State, 110 S.E. 629, 27 Ga. App. 611, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 307 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

110 S.E. 629 (Hill v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.