Young v. State

76 S.E. 753, 12 Ga. App. 86, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 37
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided December 21, 1912·No. 4517·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. It is only in those cases where the State relies entirely upon circumstantial evidence that it is incumbent upon the trial judge, without request, to instruct the jury as to the probative value of circumstantial evidence. Holt v. State, 7 Ga. App. 77 (66 S. E. 279); Benton v. State, 9 Ga. App. 422 (71 S. E. 498). The verdict in this case does not depend entirely upon such evidence.

2. The evidence obtained by an, illegal search of the house of the accused - is admissible against him. This has been repeatedly held by this court and the Supreme Court. Cohen v. State, 7 Ga. App. 5 (65 S. E. 1096); Hammock v. State, 1 Ga. App. 126 (58 S. E. 66); Williams v. State, 100 Ga. 511 (28 S. E. 624, 39 L. R. A. 269); Duren v. Thomasville, 125 Ga. 1 (53 S. E. 84).

3. The assignments of error of law are wholly without merit, and the verdict is fully supported by the evidence. ' Judgment affirmed.

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

Young v. State, 76 S.E. 753, 12 Ga. App. 86, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 37 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

76 S.E. 753 (Young v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hammock v. State
134 S.E. 121 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1926)
Knight v. State
1919 OK CR 238 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1919)