Sandford v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sandford v. State

8 S.E.2d 724, 62 Ga. App. 502, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 316

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided April 10, 1940·No. 28120.·Published

Opinion

Guerry, J.

The evidence connecting the defendant with the alleged theft was entirely circumstantial, and was insufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused. The alleged admission of guilt does not appear in the approved brief of evidence. The court erred in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Guerry, J.

The evidence connecting the defendant with the alleged theft was entirely circumstantial, and was insufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused. The alleged admission of guilt does not appear in the approved brief of evidence. The court erred in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Sandford v. State, 8 S.E.2d 724, 62 Ga. App. 502, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 316 (Ga. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

8 S.E.2d 724 (Sandford v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.