Riddings v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Riddings v. State

187 S.E.2d 555, 125 Ga. App. 334, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 1321

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 20, 1972

Docket46825

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 187 S.E.2d 555 (Riddings 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

Riddings v. State, 187 S.E.2d 555, 125 Ga. App. 334, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 1321 (Ga. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Eberhardt, Judge.

While the evidence strongly indicates a probability that the defendants may have caused the [335]*335burning of two houses, it is wholly circumstantial and does not exclude every other reasonable hypothesis. It appears that defendants’ mother had rented one of the houses and moved into it but when the only water supply, a well, failed she had to move out and the landlord refused to make any adjustment or refund of the rent. There is no confession by the defendants. They do admit their presence in the vicinity of the houses about the time of the occurrence of the fire, but, testifying under oath, they deny any responsibility for or connection with the fire, or any knowledge as to how it may have started. There is not enough here to overcome the presumption that the fire was of accidental, rather than incendiary, origin (West v. State, 6 Ga. App. 105 (64 SE 130); Pyant v. State, 46 Ga. App. 490 (167 SE 922); Hurst v. State, 88 Ga. App. 798 (78 SE2d 80)), or to establish that the defendants were the criminal agency responsible for the fire.

Argued January 4, 1972 Decided January 20, 1972. Robt. E. Andrews, for appellants. Jeff C. Wayne, District Attorney, J. Nathan Deal, for appellee.

Judgment reversed.

Bell, C. J., and Evans, J., concur.

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

Eberhardt, Judge.

While the evidence strongly indicates a probability that the defendants may have caused the [335]*335burning of two houses, it is wholly circumstantial and does not exclude every other reasonable hypothesis. It appears that defendants’ mother had rented one of the houses and moved into it but when the only water supply, a well, failed she had to move out and the landlord refused to make any adjustment or refund of the rent. There is no confession by the defendants. They do admit their presence in the vicinity of the houses about the time of the occurrence of the fire, but, testifying under oath, they deny any responsibility for or connection with the fire, or any knowledge as to how it may have started. There is not enough here to overcome the presumption that the fire was of accidental, rather than incendiary, origin (West v. State, 6 Ga. App. 105 (64 SE 130); Pyant v. State, 46 Ga. App. 490 (167 SE 922); Hurst v. State, 88 Ga. App. 798 (78 SE2d 80)), or to establish that the defendants were the criminal agency responsible for the fire.

Argued January 4, 1972 Decided January 20, 1972. Robt. E. Andrews, for appellants. Jeff C. Wayne, District Attorney, J. Nathan Deal, for appellee.

Judgment reversed.

Bell, C. J., and Evans, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 S.E.2d 555, 125 Ga. App. 334, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 1321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riddings-v-state-gactapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack