Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Thomas v. State

Thomas v. State

134 S.E. 188, 35 Ga. App. 402, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 399
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Thomas v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 33 Ga. App. 134 →
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided May 12, 1926·No. 17280·Published

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. The evidence connecting the accused with the offense charged, while circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt.

2. Ground 1 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, not having [403]*403been, approved by the trial court, can not be considered by this court. The remaining special grounds of the motion do not require a reversal of the judgment overruling the motion.

Decided May 12, 1926. Rehearing denied July 13, 1926. Hugh E. Gombs, for plaintiff in error. M. L. Fells, solicitor-general, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., wnd Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Thomas v. State, 134 S.E. 188, 35 Ga. App. 402, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 399 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

134 S.E. 188 (Thomas v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.