Reddick v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Reddick v. State

132 S.E. 645, 35 Ga. App. 256, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 680

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided April 14, 1926·No. 17138·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The accused was found “dead drunk” and in an indecent condition upon the public highway designated in the indictment. However, the evidence as to whether he voluntarily went upon the highway while intoxicated and in an indecent condition, or was involuntarily carried there by some other person, was wholly circumstantial and did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. It follows that his conviction was not authorized by the evidence, and that the refusal to grant a new trial was error. See, in this connection, Thomas v. State, 33 Ga. App. 134 (125 S. E. 778).

Judgment reversed.

Luke, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., not participating, on account of illness.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The accused was found “dead drunk” and in an indecent condition upon the public highway designated in the indictment. However, the evidence as to whether he voluntarily went upon the highway while intoxicated and in an indecent condition, or was involuntarily carried there by some other person, was wholly circumstantial and did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. It follows that his conviction was not authorized by the evidence, and that the refusal to grant a new trial was error. See, in this connection, Thomas v. State, 33 Ga. App. 134 (125 S. E. 778).

Judgment reversed.

Luke, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., not participating, on account of illness.

Reddick v. State, 132 S.E. 645, 35 Ga. App. 256, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 680 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

132 S.E. 645 (Reddick v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related