Kent v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Kent v. State

136 S.E. 96, 36 Ga. App. 209, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 873

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided December 14, 1926·No. 17690·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The amendment to the motion for a new trial, not having been argued or referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, and the said brief containing no insistence upon all the grounds of the motion for a new trial, is treated as abandoned.

[210] Decided December 14, 1926. J. A. Dixon, H. A. Boykin, for plaintiff in error. E. G. Weathers, solicitor, contra.

2. The evidence connecting the accused with the offense charged was wholly circumstantial, but it amply authorized the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of his guilt.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The amendment to the motion for a new trial, not having been argued or referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, and the said brief containing no insistence upon all the grounds of the motion for a new trial, is treated as abandoned.

[210] Decided December 14, 1926. J. A. Dixon, H. A. Boykin, for plaintiff in error. E. G. Weathers, solicitor, contra.

2. The evidence connecting the accused with the offense charged was wholly circumstantial, but it amply authorized the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of his guilt.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Kent v. State, 136 S.E. 96, 36 Ga. App. 209, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 873 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

136 S.E. 96 (Kent v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related