Sandlin v. State
95 S.E. 477, 22 Ga. App. 115, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 180
Opinion
(After stating the foregoing facts.) The evidence against the defendant was entirely circumstantial. These circumstances while sufficient to cast suspicion upon him did not exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. We think therefore that the evidence offered by the State was not sufficient to sustain the verdict of guilty, and that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. This question being controlling, other grounds of the motion are not passed on.
'Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Sandlin v. State, 95 S.E. 477, 22 Ga. App. 115, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 180 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).
95 S.E. 477 (Sandlin v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Taylor v. State
113 S.E. 93 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Dowdell v. State
101 S.E. 703 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)