Pitts v. State

1. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict.

2. The assignment of error under the first special ground of the motion for new trial presents no question for consideration, since it does not specify plainly the decision complained of and the alleged error as required by the Code, § 6-901.

3. The court did not err in defining direct evidence along with the definition of circumstantial evidence.

4. Where the court fully defined the law of circumstantial evidence and of direct evidence, it was not error to charge: "Under the law circumstantial evidence authorizes a conviction just as much…