Rivers v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rivers v. State

143 S.E. 126, 38 Ga. App. 140, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 93

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided April 10, 1928·No. 18772·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Broyles, O. J.

The evidence connecting the accused with the offense, charged, while circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of his guilt. The cases cited in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error are differentiated by their particular facts from the instant case. The refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworih, JJ., concur. E. L. Forrester, E. W. Feeny, for plaintiff in error,

cited: Penal Code (1910), § 1010; 130 Ga. 63; 1 Ga. App. 651; 33 Ga. App. 597-8; 36 Ga. App. 272-3; Id. 677-8; 25 Ga. App. 242; 30 Ga. App. 180, 181 (distinguished).

Jule Felton, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Broyles, O. J.

The evidence connecting the accused with the offense, charged, while circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of his guilt. The cases cited in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error are differentiated by their particular facts from the instant case. The refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworih, JJ., concur. E. L. Forrester, E. W. Feeny, for plaintiff in error,

cited: Penal Code (1910), § 1010; 130 Ga. 63; 1 Ga. App. 651; 33 Ga. App. 597-8; 36 Ga. App. 272-3; Id. 677-8; 25 Ga. App. 242; 30 Ga. App. 180, 181 (distinguished).

Jule Felton, solicitor-general, contra.

Rivers v. State, 143 S.E. 126, 38 Ga. App. 140, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 93 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

143 S.E. 126 (Rivers v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related