Lee v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lee v. State

165 S.E. 317, 45 Ga. App. 521, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 594

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided August 31, 1932·No. 22455·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The evidence connecting the defendant with the offense charged (larceny of an automobile), while circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt; and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial, based upon the usual general grounds only. Judgment affirmed.

Luhe and Hooper, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The evidence connecting the defendant with the offense charged (larceny of an automobile), while circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt; and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial, based upon the usual general grounds only. Judgment affirmed.

Luhe and Hooper, JJ., concur.

Lee v. State, 165 S.E. 317, 45 Ga. App. 521, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 594 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

165 S.E. 317 (Lee v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related