Hill v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hill v. State

182 S.E. 414, 52 Ga. App. 107, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 68

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 13, 1935

Docket25157

StatusPublished

This text of 182 S.E. 414 (Hill 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

Hill v. State, 182 S.E. 414, 52 Ga. App. 107, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 68 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was indicted for larceny of one thousand pounds of “short-staple seed-cotton,” the property of A. L. Kinsey. ' Kinsey testified that the stolen property was short-[108]*108staple seed-cotton, and that the cotton found in the possession of the defendant the night after the commission of the larceny looked like his cotton, but he did not know whether it was short-staple cotton or long-staple cotton, and he could not identify it as his cotton. There was other evidence which raised a strong suspicion against the defendant; bnt all of the evidence tending to connect him with the offense was circumstantial, and was insufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. It follows that his conviction was unauthorized, and that the refusal to grant him a new trial was error.

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was indicted for larceny of one thousand pounds of “short-staple seed-cotton,” the property of A. L. Kinsey. ' Kinsey testified that the stolen property was short-[108]*108staple seed-cotton, and that the cotton found in the possession of the defendant the night after the commission of the larceny looked like his cotton, but he did not know whether it was short-staple cotton or long-staple cotton, and he could not identify it as his cotton. There was other evidence which raised a strong suspicion against the defendant; bnt all of the evidence tending to connect him with the offense was circumstantial, and was insufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. It follows that his conviction was unauthorized, and that the refusal to grant him a new trial was error.

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 S.E. 414, 52 Ga. App. 107, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-state-gactapp-1935.