Vincent v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Vincent v. State

91 S.E. 690, 146 Ga. 619, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 405

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Vincent v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 145 Ga. 293 →

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided March 13, 1917·Published

Opinion

Hill, J.

1. Where the State offers direct and circumstantial evidence that the defendant committed the crime, and where one of the contentions of the defendant is that another person committed the crime, and he offers circumstantial evidence tending to support such contention, it is not error to omit to charge on the rule respecting circumstantial evidence.

2. The evidence supports the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Fish, G. J., absent.

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

Hill, J.

1. Where the State offers direct and circumstantial evidence that the defendant committed the crime, and where one of the contentions of the defendant is that another person committed the crime, and he offers circumstantial evidence tending to support such contention, it is not error to omit to charge on the rule respecting circumstantial evidence.

2. The evidence supports the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Fish, G. J., absent.

Vincent v. State, 91 S.E. 690, 146 Ga. 619, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 405 (Ga. 1917).

Pincite

91 S.E. 690 (Vincent v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.