Mixon v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mixon v. State

158 S.E. 375, 43 Ga. App. 219, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 264

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 14, 1931

Docket21270

StatusPublished

This text of 158 S.E. 375 (Mixon 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

Mixon v. State, 158 S.E. 375, 43 Ga. App. 219, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 264 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Beoti.es, O. J.

1. Tlie special grounds of the motion for a new trial (several of which are not complete and understandable within themselves) show no material or harmful error.

2. The evidence connecting the defendant with the offense charged, while circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendant’s guilt; and, that finding having been approved by the trial judge, and no error of law appearing, this court is without jurisdiction to interfere with his discretion in passing upon the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. R. H. Burroughs, for plaintiff in error. J. T. Grice, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Beoti.es, O. J.

1. Tlie special grounds of the motion for a new trial (several of which are not complete and understandable within themselves) show no material or harmful error.

2. The evidence connecting the defendant with the offense charged, while circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendant’s guilt; and, that finding having been approved by the trial judge, and no error of law appearing, this court is without jurisdiction to interfere with his discretion in passing upon the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. R. H. Burroughs, for plaintiff in error. J. T. Grice, solicitor-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 S.E. 375, 43 Ga. App. 219, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mixon-v-state-gactapp-1931.