Case ID: ga_94/html/0590-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Boston v. The State.
    1. A declaration by the accused, in substance, that he was casually present'when the homicide was committed, but that he took no part in it, and did not know that it was contemplated until after it occurred, is not a confession; and to submit to the jury the question whether it was a confession or not was error for which a new trial should have been granted. The law of confessions was not applicable to the facts
    
      2. In order to establish an alibi, two things are necessary: first, that the state of facts relied upon be such that if true it was impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the offence when it was committed; and secondly, that this state of facts should be proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the jury. It need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; much less is it requisite that the evidence should show that it was impossible for the alleged facts to be false or fabricated.
    June 4, 1894.
    Indictment for murder. Before Judge Bartlett. Bibb superior court. November .term, 1893.
    R. L. Anderson and W. J. Grace, for plaintiff in error. J. M. Terrell, attorney-general, and W. H. Belton, Jr., solicitor-general, contra.
    
   Judgment reversed.