Meads v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Meads v. State

133 S.E. 314, 35 Ga. App. 401, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 398

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 12, 1926

Docket17279

StatusPublished

This text of 133 S.E. 314 (Meads 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

Meads v. State, 133 S.E. 314, 35 Ga. App. 401, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 398 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

Under the particular facts of the ease the jury were authorized to find that the evidence adduced, although circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendant’s guilt. The cases cited in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error are distinguished by their facts from this case.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. II. A. Boylcin, J. W. Overstreet, for plaintiff in error. J. H. Howard, solicitor, contra.

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

Broyles, C. J.

Under the particular facts of the ease the jury were authorized to find that the evidence adduced, although circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendant’s guilt. The cases cited in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error are distinguished by their facts from this case.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. II. A. Boylcin, J. W. Overstreet, for plaintiff in error. J. H. Howard, solicitor, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 S.E. 314, 35 Ga. App. 401, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meads-v-state-gactapp-1926.