Orr v. StateOrr v. State
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Walker
It is nоt disputed that Welch stole the prosecutor’s horse: the question here is, does the evidence prove Orr guilty also ? Thе testimony against him is entirely circumstantial. In оrder to convict upon this character of testimony, “ it is essential that the cirсumstances should, to a moral certainty, actually exclude every hypothеsis but the one proposed to be рroved.” 1 Stark, Ev. 575. The evidence “ in criminal cases must exclude every other hypothеsis but that of the guilt of the party.” 1 Greenl. Ev. 13. “ And this degree оf conviction ought to be produced, when the facts proved coincidе with and are legally sufficient to establish thе truth of the hypothethis assumed, namely, the guilt оf the party accused, and are inсonsistent with any other hypothesis. For it is not enough that the evidence goes to show guilt; it must be inconsistеnt with the reasonable supposition of his innocence.” 3 Greenl. Ev. 29. “Circumstances, satisfаctorily proven, which point to his guilt, and whiсh are wreconcilahle with the hypothesis of his innocence,” etc.; “ circumstances which would authorize a Tocure conjedwre of guilt, are not sufficient to warrant a conviction.” Newman vs. the State, 26 Ga. 12., 637-8. Tried by these principles, the evidence fails to establish the guilt of Orr, It shows thаt he was in *346bad cam/pany, and might authorize “a bare conjecture of guilt,” but, we think, is not sufficient to “ generate full belief of the fact, to the exclusion of all reasоnable doubt.” If it be true, as Orr said, that he left the cavalrymen, after passing Mrs. Pew’s, and went home, of course he is not guilty; and this is a vеry reasonable hypothesis, consistent with Orr’s innocence. In Newman’s case [26 Ga. R., 633] the circumstances were more strongly аgainst defendant,in my opinion, than they arе in this case; and there a new trial was granted, because the verdict was contrary to evidence.
When this case wаs tried, in March, 1865, we remember an immense аmount of horse-stealing was carried on, all over the country; and it is not surprising that Cоurts and juries, iu their zeal to punish offenders, shоuld not only find the real parties guilty, hut should, somеtimes, as in this instance, convict others who, by the testimony, are not shown beyond a rеasonable doubt to be guilty. If this party be guilty, perhaps upon another trial the fact may be made more clearly manifest; if innocent, he should not be punished. We think the ends of justice require that there should he a new trial in thé case, which, accordingly, we direct.
Judgment reversed.