Wolfork v. State

103 S.E. 718, 25 Ga. App. 473, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 14
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided July 14, 1920·No. 11514·Published

Opinion

Luke, J.

Under all the facts of the case, and especially the incriminatory admissions and conduct of the defendant after he was charged with the burglary, his conviction was fully authorized by the evidence.

In the light of the court’s charge, it was not error, in the absence of a timely and appropriate written request, to fail to charge specifically on the law of circumstantial evidence. See, in this connection, Shaneyfelt v. State, 24 Ga. App. 555 (3) (101 S. E. 592).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Wolfork v. State, 103 S.E. 718, 25 Ga. App. 473, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 14 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

103 S.E. 718 (Wolfork v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Shaneyfelt v. State
101 S.E. 592 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)