Hutchinson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hutchinson v. State

131 S.E. 303, 34 Ga. App. 781, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 29

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided January 12, 1926·No. 16974·Published

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The motion for a new trial contained the usual general grounds only, and the sole contention of counsel for the accused is that the evidence of an accomplice was not sufficiently corroborated. Under the facts of the ease this court can not hold, as a matter of law, that the jury were not authorized to find that the testimony of the accomplice was sufficiently corroborated by other evidence in the ease; and, [782]*782the finding of the jury having been approved by the trial judge, this court is without authority to interfere.

Decided January 12, 1926. Shelly Myriclc, for plaintiff in error. Walter Q. Hartridge, solicitor-general, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke cmd Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The motion for a new trial contained the usual general grounds only, and the sole contention of counsel for the accused is that the evidence of an accomplice was not sufficiently corroborated. Under the facts of the ease this court can not hold, as a matter of law, that the jury were not authorized to find that the testimony of the accomplice was sufficiently corroborated by other evidence in the ease; and, [782]*782the finding of the jury having been approved by the trial judge, this court is without authority to interfere.

Decided January 12, 1926. Shelly Myriclc, for plaintiff in error. Walter Q. Hartridge, solicitor-general, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke cmd Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Hutchinson v. State, 131 S.E. 303, 34 Ga. App. 781, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 29 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

131 S.E. 303 (Hutchinson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.