36114 | Ga. Ct. App. | Mar 14, 1956

93 Ga. App. 582" court="Ga. Ct. App." date_filed="1956-03-14" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/moore-v-state-1295615?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1295615">93 Ga. App. 582 (1956)
92 S.E.2d 313" court="Ga. Ct. App." date_filed="1956-03-14" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/moore-v-state-1295615?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1295615">92 S.E.2d 313

MOORE
v.
THE STATE.

36114.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Decided March 14, 1956.

W. J. Patterson, Jr., for plaintiff in error.

H. T. O'Neal, Jr., Solicitor, William K. Buffington, Assistant Solicitor, contra.

GARDNER, P. J.

The State failed to identify the tracks as those of the defendant. See Patton v. State, 117 Ga. 230 (43 S.E. 533" court="Ga." date_filed="1903-02-13" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/patton-v-state-5572334?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="5572334">43 S.E. 533) *583 and Cummings v. State, 110 Ga. 293 (35 S.E. 117" court="Ga." date_filed="1900-01-30" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/ray-v-atlanta-banking-co-5569829?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="5569829">35 S.E. 117). In our opinion the evidence, wholly circumstantial, did not negative every reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused. See Corbin v. State, 84 Ga. App. 763 (67 S.E.2d 478" court="Ga. Ct. App." date_filed="1951-10-23" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/corbin-v-state-1389784?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1389784">67 S.E.2d 478). See also Wilson v. State, 32 Ga. App. 427 (123 S.E. 623" court="Ga. Ct. App." date_filed="1924-06-10" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/perryman-v-woods-5616219?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="5616219">123 S.E. 623); Kinsey v. State, 40 Ga. App. 707 (151 S.E. 394" court="Ga. Ct. App." date_filed="1930-01-14" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/kinsey-v-state-5620468?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="5620468">151 S.E. 394) and Ralston v. State, 66 Ga. App. 62 (17 S.E.2d 81" court="Ga. Ct. App." date_filed="1941-10-17" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/ralston-v-state-3403718?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3403718">17 S.E.2d 81).

The trial court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed. Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.

© 2024 Midpage AI does not provide legal advice. By using midpage, you consent to our Terms and Conditions.