Case ID: ga-app_57/html/0535-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MacIntyre, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

26674.
    AIKENS v. THE STATE.
   MacIntyre, J.

The special grounds of the motion for new trial are abandoned in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error. The evidence, while circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis, save the guilt of the accused. Whittemore v. State, 36 Ga. App. 299 (136 S. E. 806); Lamb v. State, 36 Ga. App. 306 (136 S. E. 306); Wynn v. State, 38 Ga. App. 262 (143 S. E. 599); Williams v. State, 41 Ga. App. 351 (152 S. E. 911); Johnson v. State, 41 Ga. App. 327 (152 S. E. 920); Craig v. State, 41 Ga. App. 225 (152 S. E. 494); Cook v. State, 33 Ga. App. 571 (2) (127 S. E. 156); Hale v. State, 50 Ga. App. 99 (176 S. E. 919). The case of Wright v. State, 48 Ga. App. 302 (172 S. E. 687), is differentiated on. its facts from the present case.

Decided March 17, 1938.

Judgment affii-med.

Broyles, O. J., and Guerry, J., concur.

J. W. lennard, O. L. Harris, for plaintiff in error.

Allan 0. Garden, solicitor-general, contra.