Kent v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Kent v. State

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

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 14, 1926

Docket17690

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 136 S.E. 96 (Kent 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

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

Pincite

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]*210Decided 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