Hampton v. State

Dec 16, 1925
16885, 16886
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Bloodworth
Bloodworth, J.

In each of these cases the conviction was dependent upon circumstantial evidence. In neither of them was the evidence sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt j>i the accused. The refusal to grant a new trial was error.

Judgments reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur. M. C. Few, for plaintiff in error. Joseph B. Dulce, solicitor-general, contra.