Scott v. State

The conviction of the defendant being dependent upon the evidence of an accomplice, and there being no corroborating circumstances which in themselves and independently of the testimony of the accomplice directly connect him with the crime, it was error to overrule his motion for a new trial. See Baker v. State, 14 Ga. App. 578 (4) (81 S. E. 805), and cases cited.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., and Blood/worth, J., concur.