Rushing v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rushing v. State

130 S.E. 358, 34 Ga. App. 525, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 386

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 11, 1925

Docket16777

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 130 S.E. 358 (Rushing 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

Rushing v. State, 130 S.E. 358, 34 Ga. App. 525, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 386 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The evidence in this case amply authorized the conviction. The conviction not being wholly dependent upon circumstantial evidence, and there being no request to charge thereon, the assignment of error upon the ground that the judge did not charge the law of circumstantial evidence is without merit. Eor no reason pointed out in the record did the court err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloockoorth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

The evidence in this case amply authorized the conviction. The conviction not being wholly dependent upon circumstantial evidence, and there being no request to charge thereon, the assignment of error upon the ground that the judge did not charge the law of circumstantial evidence is without merit. Eor no reason pointed out in the record did the court err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloockoorth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 S.E. 358, 34 Ga. App. 525, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rushing-v-state-gactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack