Pullen v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pullen v. State

137 S.E. 574, 36 Ga. App. 600, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 173

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 8, 1927

Docket17813

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 137 S.E. 574 (Pullen 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

Pullen v. State, 137 S.E. 574, 36 Ga. App. 600, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 173 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

Aside from the fact that the party who was jointly indicted with the plaintiff in error for stealing 200 pounds of seed-cotton, and who had previously pleaded guilty to the theft charged, testified, when introduced as a witness for the State, that he alone stole the cotton, and that the plaintiff in error had nothing whatever to do with it, the conviction rests solely upon circumstantial evidence which does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused; and for this reason the verdict can not stand. Penal Code (1910), § 1010. See also Lindsey v. State, 9 Ga. App. 299 (3) (70 S. E. 1114), and cit.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur. George G. Glenn, D. W. Mitchell, for plaintiff in error. G. G. Pittman, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Luke, J.

Aside from the fact that the party who was jointly indicted with the plaintiff in error for stealing 200 pounds of seed-cotton, and who had previously pleaded guilty to the theft charged, testified, when introduced as a witness for the State, that he alone stole the cotton, and that the plaintiff in error had nothing whatever to do with it, the conviction rests solely upon circumstantial evidence which does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused; and for this reason the verdict can not stand. Penal Code (1910), § 1010. See also Lindsey v. State, 9 Ga. App. 299 (3) (70 S. E. 1114), and cit.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur. George G. Glenn, D. W. Mitchell, for plaintiff in error. G. G. Pittman, solicitor-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 S.E. 574, 36 Ga. App. 600, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pullen-v-state-gactapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack