Jones v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Jones v. State

136 S.E. 542, 36 Ga. App. 264, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 2

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided January 11, 1927·No. 17677·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Brotles, C. J.

1. In the light of the notes of the trial judge, as set forth in his order approving the grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, the first two grounds are without merit; the remaining ground is merely an elaboration of the general grounds of the motion for a new trial.

3. The evidence connecting the accused with the offense charged, while wholly circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. See, in this connection, Yonce v. State, 154 Ga. 419 (114 S. E. 325), 29 Ga. App. 173 (114 S. E. 584), and cit.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

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

Brotles, C. J.

1. In the light of the notes of the trial judge, as set forth in his order approving the grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, the first two grounds are without merit; the remaining ground is merely an elaboration of the general grounds of the motion for a new trial.

3. The evidence connecting the accused with the offense charged, while wholly circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. See, in this connection, Yonce v. State, 154 Ga. 419 (114 S. E. 325), 29 Ga. App. 173 (114 S. E. 584), and cit.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

Jones v. State, 136 S.E. 542, 36 Ga. App. 264, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 2 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

136 S.E. 542 (Jones v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related