Hoffman v. State
This text of 166 N.E. 158 (Hoffman v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This is a companion case to the case of Cummins v. State (1929), ante 256, 166 N. E. 155. The only question presented in this case, as in that, is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury. There is less evidence to sustain the verdict in this case than in the Cummins case, which we this day reversed. In fact, upon oral argument of this case, the counsel for the State conceded the insufficiency of the evidence in this case. The judgment is reversed, with instructions to sustain the motion for a new trial.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
166 N.E. 158, 89 Ind. App. 710, 1929 Ind. App. LEXIS 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffman-v-state-indctapp-1929.