Smith v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Smith v. State

72 Ga. App. 78

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 6, 1945

Docket30767

StatusPublished

This text of 72 Ga. App. 78 (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, 72 Ga. App. 78 (Ga. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of stealing' clothing of the value of $49.98. The evidence tending to connect him. with the theft was wholly circumstantial and was insufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of his guilt. Therefore, the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence; and the overruling of the certiorari was error.

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur. C. G. Battle, J. O. Ewing, for plaintiff in error. Lindley W. Camp, solicitor, John A. Boykin, E. E. Andrews, solicitors-general, Durwood T. Pye, contra.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of stealing' clothing of the value of $49.98. The evidence tending to connect him. with the theft was wholly circumstantial and was insufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of his guilt. Therefore, the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence; and the overruling of the certiorari was error.

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur. C. G. Battle, J. O. Ewing, for plaintiff in error. Lindley W. Camp, solicitor, John A. Boykin, E. E. Andrews, solicitors-general, Durwood T. Pye, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 Ga. App. 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-state-gactapp-1945.