Hughie v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hughie v. State

182 S.E. 197, 52 Ga. App. 73, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 40

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 2, 1935

Docket25118

StatusPublished

This text of 182 S.E. 197 (Hughie 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

Hughie v. State, 182 S.E. 197, 52 Ga. App. 73, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 40 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Guerry, J.

The defendant was indicted for larceny of an automobile. The only evidence in the record before this court, tending in any manner to connect the accused with the alleged offense, was his proximity to the scene of the crime, and therefore his opportunity to have committed it; and the testimony of a witness that he recovered the stolen automobile in Ball Ground, Georgia; that the sheriff left the defendant in Canton jail, and that the defendant stated to the witness that he had bought the car from somebody in Murphy, N. C. The evidence was not sufficient to show that the defendant was found in the recent possession of the stolen automobile, and (being wholly circumstantial) was not sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. Code of 1933, § 38-109. The judge erred in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., concurs. MacIntyre, J., dissents.

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

Guerry, J.

The defendant was indicted for larceny of an automobile. The only evidence in the record before this court, tending in any manner to connect the accused with the alleged offense, was his proximity to the scene of the crime, and therefore his opportunity to have committed it; and the testimony of a witness that he recovered the stolen automobile in Ball Ground, Georgia; that the sheriff left the defendant in Canton jail, and that the defendant stated to the witness that he had bought the car from somebody in Murphy, N. C. The evidence was not sufficient to show that the defendant was found in the recent possession of the stolen automobile, and (being wholly circumstantial) was not sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. Code of 1933, § 38-109. The judge erred in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., concurs. MacIntyre, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 S.E. 197, 52 Ga. App. 73, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughie-v-state-gactapp-1935.