Diggs v. State

Counsel for the defendant argues that in every criminal case the burden rests upon the State to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Code § 38-110. In carrying this burden, circumstantial evidence should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, and should exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the defendant. Code § 38-109. A bare suspicion of the defendant’s guilt is not sufficient. Carter v. State, 57 Ga. App, 180 (194 S. E. 842), which was a hog-stealing case. There the circumstantial evidence was too remote to consider as excluding every…