Case ID: ga-app_35/html/0364-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bloodwoetii, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

17142.
    Hutto v. The State.
    Criminal Law,'16 C. J. p. 765, n. 60.
    Decided May 12, 1926.
    Conviction of larceny from person; from Houston superior court —Judge Mathews. January 2, 1926.
    
      M. Kunz, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Citarles H. Garrett, solicitor-general, contra.
   Bloodwoetii, J.

1. There is no merit in either of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial, or in any of the assignments of error in the bill of exceptions.

2. The evidence is ample to support the verdict. Although circumstantial, it is sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.