Sheffield v. State

57 S.E. 969, 1 Ga. App. 135, 1907 Ga. App. LEXIS 168
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided February 4, 1907·No. 177·Published·Cited by 9 cases

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

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

57 S.E. 969 (Sheffield v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

D. O. D. v. State
274 S.E.2d 696 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1980)
DOD v. State of Ga.
274 S.E.2d 696 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1980)
Wheeler v. State
185 S.E.2d 900 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1971)
Sheffield v. State
183 S.E.2d 525 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1971)
Diggs v. State
84 S.E.2d 611 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1954)
Barlow v. State
79 S.E. 93 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1913)