Kirkland v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Kirkland v. State

112 S.E. 910, 28 Ga. App. 679, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 776

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 14, 1922

Docket13514

StatusPublished

This text of 112 S.E. 910 (Kirkland 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

Kirkland v. State, 112 S.E. 910, 28 Ga. App. 679, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 776 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The amendment to the motion for a new trial was without merit, as it was based upon alleged newly discovered evidence which was merely cumulative and impeaching in its character.

2. While the evidence connecting the defendants with the offense charged was purely circumstantial, this court, after a careful review of the evidence, cannot say that it was insufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis in the case save that of the defendants’ guilt. “ Questions of fact are for the jury, especially in cases of circumstantial evidence; and where no error of law has been committed, and the court has submitted to them the law in regard to such evidence and no complaint is made about the charge in this respect, and there is ample evidence to authorize the finding, this court will not interfere — the verdict being neither against the law nor the evidence.” Fraser v. State, 55 Ga. 326 (6).

3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and, the finding of the jury having been approved by the trial court, this court is without authority to interfere.

■Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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 was without merit, as it was based upon alleged newly discovered evidence which was merely cumulative and impeaching in its character.

2. While the evidence connecting the defendants with the offense charged was purely circumstantial, this court, after a careful review of the evidence, cannot say that it was insufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis in the case save that of the defendants’ guilt. “ Questions of fact are for the jury, especially in cases of circumstantial evidence; and where no error of law has been committed, and the court has submitted to them the law in regard to such evidence and no complaint is made about the charge in this respect, and there is ample evidence to authorize the finding, this court will not interfere — the verdict being neither against the law nor the evidence.” Fraser v. State, 55 Ga. 326 (6).

3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and, the finding of the jury having been approved by the trial court, this court is without authority to interfere.

■Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 S.E. 910, 28 Ga. App. 679, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kirkland-v-state-gactapp-1922.