Hulsey v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hulsey v. State

140 S.E. 428, 37 Ga. App. 350, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 669

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 16, 1927

Docket18315

StatusPublished

This text of 140 S.E. 428 (Hulsey 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

Hulsey v. State, 140 S.E. 428, 37 Ga. App. 350, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 669 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodwortii, J.

1. “The only evidence which suggests the defense of alibi is confused and uncertain, and fails reasonably to exclude the possibility of the presence of the 'defendant at the scene of the offense at the time of its commission.” Moore v. State, 17 Ga. App. 344 (2) (86 S. E. 822). In the absence of a timely written request, it would not have been error had the court failed to instruct the jury touching the law of alibi. However, the court gave the defendant the benefit of the charge on this defense, and under the facts of this case this charge will not require the grant of a now trial, oven though the court prefaced these instructions With the statement, “The question of alibi is0 possibly in it.”

2. There is ample evidence to support the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodwortii, J.

1. “The only evidence which suggests the defense of alibi is confused and uncertain, and fails reasonably to exclude the possibility of the presence of the 'defendant at the scene of the offense at the time of its commission.” Moore v. State, 17 Ga. App. 344 (2) (86 S. E. 822). In the absence of a timely written request, it would not have been error had the court failed to instruct the jury touching the law of alibi. However, the court gave the defendant the benefit of the charge on this defense, and under the facts of this case this charge will not require the grant of a now trial, oven though the court prefaced these instructions With the statement, “The question of alibi is0 possibly in it.”

2. There is ample evidence to support the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 S.E. 428, 37 Ga. App. 350, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hulsey-v-state-gactapp-1927.

Opinion

2. There is ample evidence to support the verdict.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack