History
  • No items yet
midpage
Smith v. State
36 Ga. App. 296
Ga. Ct. App.
1927
Check Treatment
Broyles, C. J.

1. In the light of the entire charge of the court and the facts of the case as disclosed by the record, the alleged errors of omission and commission in the charge do not require another hearing of the case.

2. While the evidence relied upon by the State for a conviction of the offense charged was wholly circumstantial, this court can not hold, as a matter of law, that it was insufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendant’s guilt; and the court having correctly instructed the jury upon the law of circumstantial evidence, and the finding of the jury having been approved by the trial court, and no reversible error of law appearing, this court is without authority to interfere. This case is distinguished by its particular facts from those cited in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Case Details

Case Name: Smith v. State
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Date Published: Jan 11, 1927
Citation: 36 Ga. App. 296
Docket Number: 17743
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.