Smith v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Smith v. State

136 S.E. 330, 36 Ga. App. 296, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 30

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 11, 1927

Docket17743

StatusPublished

This text of 136 S.E. 330 (Smith 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

Smith v. State, 136 S.E. 330, 36 Ga. App. 296, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 30 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. In the light of the entire charge of the court and the facts of the case as disclosed by the record, the alleged errors of omission and commission in the charge do not require another hearing of the case.

2. While the evidence relied upon by the State for a conviction of the offense charged was wholly circumstantial, this court can not hold, as a matter of law, that it was insufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendant’s guilt; and the court having correctly instructed the jury upon the law of circumstantial evidence, and the finding of the jury having been approved by the trial court, and no reversible error of law appearing, this court is without authority to interfere. This case is distinguished by its particular facts from those cited in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. In the light of the entire charge of the court and the facts of the case as disclosed by the record, the alleged errors of omission and commission in the charge do not require another hearing of the case.

2. While the evidence relied upon by the State for a conviction of the offense charged was wholly circumstantial, this court can not hold, as a matter of law, that it was insufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendant’s guilt; and the court having correctly instructed the jury upon the law of circumstantial evidence, and the finding of the jury having been approved by the trial court, and no reversible error of law appearing, this court is without authority to interfere. This case is distinguished by its particular facts from those cited in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 S.E. 330, 36 Ga. App. 296, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-state-gactapp-1927.