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

Hunter v. State

114 S.E. 924, 29 Ga. App. 277, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 240
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hunter v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 29 Ga. App. 366 →
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided December 12, 1922·No. 13888·Published

Opinion

Luke, J.

The conviction of the defendant being dependent upon the evidence of accomplices, and there being no corroborating circumstances which in themselves and independently of the testimony of the accomplices directly connected him with the crime, it was error to overrule his [278]*278motion for a new trial. See Baker v. State, 14 Ga. App. 578 (4) (81 S. E. 369), and cases cited.

Decided December 12, 1922. J. A. Darsey, J. J. Flynt, for plaintiff in error. E. M. Owen, solicitor-general, W. H. Beck, W. H. Conner, con- . tra.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Hunter v. State, 114 S.E. 924, 29 Ga. App. 277, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 240 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

114 S.E. 924 (Hunter v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bullard v. State
81 S.E. 369 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1914)
Baker v. State
81 S.E. 805 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1914)