History
  • No items yet
midpage
Jones v. State
36 Ga. App. 264
Ga. Ct. App.
1927
Check Treatment
Brotles, C. J.

1. In the light of the notes of the trial judge, as set forth in his order approving the grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, the first two grounds are without merit; the remaining ground is merely an elaboration of the general grounds of the motion for a new trial.

3. The evidence connecting the accused with the offense charged, while wholly circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. See, in this connection, Yonce v. State, 154 Ga. 419 (114 S. E. 325), 29 Ga. App. 173 (114 S. E. 584), and cit.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

Case Details

Case Name: Jones v. State
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Date Published: Jan 11, 1927
Citation: 36 Ga. App. 264
Docket Number: 17677
Court Abbreviation: Ga. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.