Pittman v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pittman v. State

138 S.E. 245, 36 Ga. App. 762, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 292

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided May 11, 1927·No. 18005·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Bloodworm, J.

This is a ease of circumstantial evidence. The jury were instructed that “the proven facts and circumstances must not only be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, but must exclude every reasonable hypothesis, save the guilt of the accused.” The evidence was sufficient to satisfy the jury of the guilt of the accused. The trial judge, who, like the jury, saw the witnesses and heard their testimony, approved the verdict. This court can not say that the verdict was unauthorized.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworm, J.

This is a ease of circumstantial evidence. The jury were instructed that “the proven facts and circumstances must not only be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, but must exclude every reasonable hypothesis, save the guilt of the accused.” The evidence was sufficient to satisfy the jury of the guilt of the accused. The trial judge, who, like the jury, saw the witnesses and heard their testimony, approved the verdict. This court can not say that the verdict was unauthorized.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Pittman v. State, 138 S.E. 245, 36 Ga. App. 762, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 292 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

138 S.E. 245 (Pittman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related