Lane v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lane v. State

134 S.E. 340, 35 Ga. App. 667, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 1073

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided August 4, 1926·No. 17516·Published

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The conviction of the accused did not depend wholly upon circumstantial evidence, and therefore the failure of the court to instruct the jury upon the law of circumstantial evidence was not error, in the absence of a timely and appropriate written request.

2. There is no merit in the remaining special ground of the motion for a new trial, and the verdict was authorized by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworlh, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The conviction of the accused did not depend wholly upon circumstantial evidence, and therefore the failure of the court to instruct the jury upon the law of circumstantial evidence was not error, in the absence of a timely and appropriate written request.

2. There is no merit in the remaining special ground of the motion for a new trial, and the verdict was authorized by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworlh, JJ., concur.

Lane v. State, 134 S.E. 340, 35 Ga. App. 667, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 1073 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

134 S.E. 340 (Lane v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.