Taff v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Taff v. State

114 S.E. 816, 29 Ga. App. 223, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 184

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided November 16, 1922·No. 13790·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Luke, J.

Although the evidence raises a strong suspicion of guilt, it is not sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the defendant. It was, therefore, error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur. Len B. Ouillebeau, A. W. Powell, for plaintiff in error. John A. Boylcin, solicitor-general, B. A. Stephens, contra.

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

Luke, J.

Although the evidence raises a strong suspicion of guilt, it is not sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the defendant. It was, therefore, error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur. Len B. Ouillebeau, A. W. Powell, for plaintiff in error. John A. Boylcin, solicitor-general, B. A. Stephens, contra.

Taff v. State, 114 S.E. 816, 29 Ga. App. 223, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 184 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

114 S.E. 816 (Taff v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related