Putman v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Putman v. State

134 S.E. 141, 35 Ga. App. 477, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 926

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 15, 1926

Docket17293

StatusPublished

This text of 134 S.E. 141 (Putman 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

Putman v. State, 134 S.E. 141, 35 Ga. App. 477, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 926 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Bkoyles, C. J.

1. When the various excerpts from the charge of the court, complained of, are considered in the light of the entire charge and the facts of the case, no reversible error appears.

2. While the evidence connecting the accused with the offense charged was wholly circumstantial, this court, under all the particular facts of the case, can not hold, as a matter of law, that the jury were not authorized to find that the evidence was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of the defendant’s guilt; and, the finding of the jury having been approved by the trial court, this court has no authority to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Lulce, J., concurs. Bloodxoorth, J., dissents. William E. & Gordon Mann, for plaintiff in error. C. G. Pittman, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Bkoyles, C. J.

1. When the various excerpts from the charge of the court, complained of, are considered in the light of the entire charge and the facts of the case, no reversible error appears.

2. While the evidence connecting the accused with the offense charged was wholly circumstantial, this court, under all the particular facts of the case, can not hold, as a matter of law, that the jury were not authorized to find that the evidence was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of the defendant’s guilt; and, the finding of the jury having been approved by the trial court, this court has no authority to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Lulce, J., concurs. Bloodxoorth, J., dissents. William E. & Gordon Mann, for plaintiff in error. C. G. Pittman, solicitor-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 S.E. 141, 35 Ga. App. 477, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/putman-v-state-gactapp-1926.