Morris v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Morris v. State

191 S.E. 182, 55 Ga. App. 680, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 456

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Morris v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 51 Ga. App. 145 →

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided April 8, 1937·No. 26128·Published

Opinion

MacIntyre, J.

Tlie defendant was convicted of larceny from the house, and his motion for new trial embraced the general grounds only. The evidence connecting him with the offense charged, while wholly circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of his guilt. The cases cited in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error are clearly distinguishable by their particular fa'cts from the instant case. The overruling of the motion for new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Guerry, J., concur. Stonewall H. Dyer, for plaintiff in error. William Y. Atlcinso’n, solicitor-general, contra.

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

MacIntyre, J.

Tlie defendant was convicted of larceny from the house, and his motion for new trial embraced the general grounds only. The evidence connecting him with the offense charged, while wholly circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of his guilt. The cases cited in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error are clearly distinguishable by their particular fa'cts from the instant case. The overruling of the motion for new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Guerry, J., concur. Stonewall H. Dyer, for plaintiff in error. William Y. Atlcinso’n, solicitor-general, contra.

Morris v. State, 191 S.E. 182, 55 Ga. App. 680, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 456 (Ga. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

191 S.E. 182 (Morris v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.