Rich v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rich v. State

16 S.E.2d 521, 65 Ga. App. 745, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 380

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 6, 1941

Docket29026; 29027

StatusPublished

This text of 16 S.E.2d 521 (Rich 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

Rich v. State, 16 S.E.2d 521, 65 Ga. App. 745, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 380 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The defendants were jointly indicted for simple larceny (cattle stealing), were tried separately, and both were convicted of the offense charged. Each defendant made a motion for a new trial which was overruled and that judgment is assigned as error in each bill of exceptions. The evidence, and the grounds of the motions for new trial, are substantially identical in each case. A careful reading of the lengthy brief of evidence in each case convinces us that the jury were authorized to find that the evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendant’s guilt; and the finding of the jury having the approval of the trial judge, this court can not reverse the judgment on the general grounds of the motions for new trial. And none of the special grounds of the motions shows harmful error.

Judgment in each case affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The defendants were jointly indicted for simple larceny (cattle stealing), were tried separately, and both were convicted of the offense charged. Each defendant made a motion for a new trial which was overruled and that judgment is assigned as error in each bill of exceptions. The evidence, and the grounds of the motions for new trial, are substantially identical in each case. A careful reading of the lengthy brief of evidence in each case convinces us that the jury were authorized to find that the evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendant’s guilt; and the finding of the jury having the approval of the trial judge, this court can not reverse the judgment on the general grounds of the motions for new trial. And none of the special grounds of the motions shows harmful error.

Judgment in each case affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 S.E.2d 521, 65 Ga. App. 745, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rich-v-state-gactapp-1941.