Mays v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mays v. State

147 S.E. 403, 39 Ga. App. 498, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 380

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 7, 1929

Docket19365

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 147 S.E. 403 (Mays 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

Mays v. State, 147 S.E. 403, 39 Ga. App. 498, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 380 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

The indictment charged that the accused did “cut and stab” Lois Gibson with a razor. The trial resulted in a verdict of guilty. A motion for a new trial was overruled, and the defendant excepted. The motion for a new trial contained the general grounds only, but the plaintiff in error contends that there is no evidence to support the verdict of guilty. With this insistance we agree. The evidence shows that Lois Gibson was cut, but there is no evidence to show that she was cut with a razor or with a weapon substantially of the same character. Indeed none of the witnesses saw the accused in possession of any weapon, and none is [499]*499shown by the evidence. Nor does the evidence show the character of the wound inflicted, further than that she was cut. This being true, there is no evidence to support the verdict and the motion for a new trial was improperly overruled. The facts of this case differentiate it from Watson v. State, 21 Ga. App. 637 (94 S. E. 857), and cases there referred to.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur..

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

Bloodworth, J.

The indictment charged that the accused did “cut and stab” Lois Gibson with a razor. The trial resulted in a verdict of guilty. A motion for a new trial was overruled, and the defendant excepted. The motion for a new trial contained the general grounds only, but the plaintiff in error contends that there is no evidence to support the verdict of guilty. With this insistance we agree. The evidence shows that Lois Gibson was cut, but there is no evidence to show that she was cut with a razor or with a weapon substantially of the same character. Indeed none of the witnesses saw the accused in possession of any weapon, and none is [499]*499shown by the evidence. Nor does the evidence show the character of the wound inflicted, further than that she was cut. This being true, there is no evidence to support the verdict and the motion for a new trial was improperly overruled. The facts of this case differentiate it from Watson v. State, 21 Ga. App. 637 (94 S. E. 857), and cases there referred to.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur..

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 S.E. 403, 39 Ga. App. 498, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mays-v-state-gactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack