Manning v. State

135 S.E. 493, 36 Ga. App. 90, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 777
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedNovember 9, 1926
Docket17527
StatusPublished

This text of 135 S.E. 493 (Manning 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
Manning v. State, 135 S.E. 493, 36 Ga. App. 90, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 777 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. Under the facts of the case, the grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial show no cause for a reversal of the judgment below.

2. While the evidence connecting the accused with the offense charged was wholly circumstantial, it was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt; and the judge having correctly instructed the jury upon the law of circumstantial evidence, and the find- . ing of the jury having been approved by the judge, and no error of law appearing, this court is without authority to interfere.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
135 S.E. 493, 36 Ga. App. 90, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manning-v-state-gactapp-1926.