Snead v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Snead v. State

35 S.E.2d 319, 72 Ga. App. 792, 1945 Ga. App. LEXIS 702

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 15, 1945

Docket30956.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 35 S.E.2d 319 (Snead 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

Snead v. State, 35 S.E.2d 319, 72 Ga. App. 792, 1945 Ga. App. LEXIS 702 (Ga. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted in the criminal court of Fulton County upon an accusation which alleged that, in Fulton County, Georgia, on October 30, 1944, he “did wander and stroll about in idleness; was able to work and did not work, and had no property to support him, and further, that said accused was able to work, and did not work, and had no visible and known means of a fair, reputable and honest livelihood.” The evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offenses charged was wholly circumstantial, and was insufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. His conviction, therefore, was contrary to law and the evidence, and the overruling of his certiorari was error.

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur. *793 Wesley R. Asinof, for plaintiff in error. Lindley W. Camp, solicitor, E. E. Andrews, solicitor-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 in the criminal court of Fulton County upon an accusation which alleged that, in Fulton County, Georgia, on October 30, 1944, he “did wander and stroll about in idleness; was able to work and did not work, and had no property to support him, and further, that said accused was able to work, and did not work, and had no visible and known means of a fair, reputable and honest livelihood.” The evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offenses charged was wholly circumstantial, and was insufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. His conviction, therefore, was contrary to law and the evidence, and the overruling of his certiorari was error.

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur. *793 Wesley R. Asinof, for plaintiff in error. Lindley W. Camp, solicitor, E. E. Andrews, solicitor-general, Durwood T. Pye, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 S.E.2d 319, 72 Ga. App. 792, 1945 Ga. App. LEXIS 702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snead-v-state-gactapp-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack