Owens v. State

1. Where the court defines direct and circumstantial evidence and gives an instruction, that, “before the jury would be authorized to convict upon circumstantial evidence alone, the proven facts must not only be consistent with the hypothesis of the defendant’s guilt, but should exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused,” the omission of the court to instruct in so many words that the defendant’s guilt was sought to be established only by circumstantial evidence is not sufficient ground for new trial.

2. There was no error in receiving in evidence an…