Sheffield v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sheffield v. State

57 S.E. 969, 1 Ga. App. 135, 1907 Ga. App. LEXIS 168

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 4, 1907

Docket177

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 57 S.E. 969 (Sheffield 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

Sheffield v. State, 57 S.E. 969, 1 Ga. App. 135, 1907 Ga. App. LEXIS 168 (Ga. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, J.

1. Although the evidence is circumstantial and barely sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendant’s guilt, no reasonable supposition can be drawn from the evidence which will connect any other person with the disappearance of the articles proven to have been lost, which was concurrent with the disappearance of the defendant.

2. The circumstances of the loss establish the corpus delicti; and the untimely and secret departure of the defendant, his concealing himself to avoid arrest, and his contradictory statements, as well as his unequaled opportunity to commit the crime, all taken together, make such a ease upon the facts that we are not empowered to say that the finding of the lower court was without evidence to support it, and are prevented (in the absence of any other assignment of error) from holding that the verdict was contrary to law. Judgment affirmed.

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

Russell, J.

1. Although the evidence is circumstantial and barely sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendant’s guilt, no reasonable supposition can be drawn from the evidence which will connect any other person with the disappearance of the articles proven to have been lost, which was concurrent with the disappearance of the defendant.

2. The circumstances of the loss establish the corpus delicti; and the untimely and secret departure of the defendant, his concealing himself to avoid arrest, and his contradictory statements, as well as his unequaled opportunity to commit the crime, all taken together, make such a ease upon the facts that we are not empowered to say that the finding of the lower court was without evidence to support it, and are prevented (in the absence of any other assignment of error) from holding that the verdict was contrary to law. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 S.E. 969, 1 Ga. App. 135, 1907 Ga. App. LEXIS 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheffield-v-state-gactapp-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack