Roberson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Roberson v. State

102 S.E. 378, 25 Ga. App. 18, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 559

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided March 3, 1920·No. 11075·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Luke, J.

“To sustain a conviction upon tiie testimony of an accomplice, there must be corroborating circumstances which, in themselves and independently of the testimony of the accomplice, directly connect the defendant with the crime, or lead to the inference that he is guilty.” The evidence in this case, which was given by an accomplice, is without corroboration directly connecting the defendant with the crime or leading to the inference that he is guilty. See Stokes v. State, 19 Ga. App. 235 (915 E. 271), and cit. There being no other evidence of guilt, it was error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed:

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

“To sustain a conviction upon tiie testimony of an accomplice, there must be corroborating circumstances which, in themselves and independently of the testimony of the accomplice, directly connect the defendant with the crime, or lead to the inference that he is guilty.” The evidence in this case, which was given by an accomplice, is without corroboration directly connecting the defendant with the crime or leading to the inference that he is guilty. See Stokes v. State, 19 Ga. App. 235 (915 E. 271), and cit. There being no other evidence of guilt, it was error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed:

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Roberson v. State, 102 S.E. 378, 25 Ga. App. 18, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 559 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

102 S.E. 378 (Roberson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related