Norton v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Norton v. State

14 S.E.2d 609, 65 Ga. App. 25, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 237

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 2, 1941

Docket28824.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 14 S.E.2d 609 (Norton 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

Norton v. State, 14 S.E.2d 609, 65 Ga. App. 25, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 237 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

Grady Norton, Hoyt Norton, Arzo Norton, Gartrell Tucker, and Hubert Norton, the defendant in this case, were jointly indicted for chicken stealing. The defendant was. tried separately, and was convicted. His motion for new trial, embracing only the general grounds, was overruled, and he excepted. The evidence tending to connect him with the .offense was wholly circumstantial, and, while raising a strong suspicion of his guilt, *26 was insufficient to authorize the jury to find that he stole the chickens, or was present at the theft, or was aiding or abetting others in the stealing, to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis. It follows that the denial of a new trial was error.

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

Grady Norton, Hoyt Norton, Arzo Norton, Gartrell Tucker, and Hubert Norton, the defendant in this case, were jointly indicted for chicken stealing. The defendant was. tried separately, and was convicted. His motion for new trial, embracing only the general grounds, was overruled, and he excepted. The evidence tending to connect him with the .offense was wholly circumstantial, and, while raising a strong suspicion of his guilt, *26 was insufficient to authorize the jury to find that he stole the chickens, or was present at the theft, or was aiding or abetting others in the stealing, to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis. It follows that the denial of a new trial was error.

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 S.E.2d 609, 65 Ga. App. 25, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norton-v-state-gactapp-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack