Waters v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Waters v. State

118 S.E. 406, 30 Ga. App. 372, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 474

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Waters v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 25 Ga. App. 577 →

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided June 12, 1923·No. 14550·Published

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

Tlie evidence relied upon" for the conviction of tile defendant was entirely circumstantial and did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. The court, therefore, erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodivorth, JJ., concur. M. L. Harris, McClure & McClure, for plaintiff in error, J. M. Lang, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Broyles, C. J.

Tlie evidence relied upon" for the conviction of tile defendant was entirely circumstantial and did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. The court, therefore, erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodivorth, JJ., concur. M. L. Harris, McClure & McClure, for plaintiff in error, J. M. Lang, solicitor-general, contra.

Waters v. State, 118 S.E. 406, 30 Ga. App. 372, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 474 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

118 S.E. 406 (Waters v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.