Teal v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Teal v. State

110 S.E. 520, 27 Ga. App. 603, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 300

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 16, 1921

Docket12686

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 110 S.E. 520 (Teal 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

Teal v. State, 110 S.E. 520, 27 Ga. App. 603, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 300 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of manufacturing liquor. The evidence relied upon by the State was wholly circumstantial and was not sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendant’s guilt. It was therefore error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur. W. E. Spinks, for plaintiff in error. J. R. Hutcheson, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Luke, J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of manufacturing liquor. The evidence relied upon by the State was wholly circumstantial and was not sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendant’s guilt. It was therefore error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur. W. E. Spinks, for plaintiff in error. J. R. Hutcheson, solicitor-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 S.E. 520, 27 Ga. App. 603, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teal-v-state-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack