Usher v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Usher v. State

110 S.E. 414, 27 Ga. App. 776, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 418

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 13, 1921

Docket12953

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 110 S.E. 414 (Usher 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

Usher v. State, 110 S.E. 414, 27 Ga. App. 776, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 418 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. Although evidence when admitted may be objectionable as hearsay, not coming strictly within the res gestae, the irregularity in admitting it is not such as to require a new trial, if the direct facts be proved by another witness whose knowledge of them is personal and immediate, and as whose sayings they were detailed by the other witness. Lovett v. State, 60 Ga. 258 (4); Smith v. State, 24 Ga. App. 654 (101 S. E. 764); Cochran v. Meeks, 25 Ga. App. 61 (2) (102 S. E. 550). Under the above ruling, the alleged error complained of in the amendment to the motion for a new trial does not require another trial of the case.

2. While the evidence of the guilt of the accused, including the identification of the stolen property, is wholly circumstantial, the corpus delicti was clearly established, and the evidence was such as to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the cotton found in the possession of the defendant was the identical cotton recently stolen from the prosecutor, and to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendant’s guilt. See, in this connection, Beasley v. State, 12 Ga. App. 256 (77 S. E. 100). The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. Although evidence when admitted may be objectionable as hearsay, not coming strictly within the res gestae, the irregularity in admitting it is not such as to require a new trial, if the direct facts be proved by another witness whose knowledge of them is personal and immediate, and as whose sayings they were detailed by the other witness. Lovett v. State, 60 Ga. 258 (4); Smith v. State, 24 Ga. App. 654 (101 S. E. 764); Cochran v. Meeks, 25 Ga. App. 61 (2) (102 S. E. 550). Under the above ruling, the alleged error complained of in the amendment to the motion for a new trial does not require another trial of the case.

2. While the evidence of the guilt of the accused, including the identification of the stolen property, is wholly circumstantial, the corpus delicti was clearly established, and the evidence was such as to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the cotton found in the possession of the defendant was the identical cotton recently stolen from the prosecutor, and to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendant’s guilt. See, in this connection, Beasley v. State, 12 Ga. App. 256 (77 S. E. 100). The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 S.E. 414, 27 Ga. App. 776, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/usher-v-state-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack