Legal Opinion

Daniel v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided April 9, 1929No. 19558Published

1Opinion of the CourtBloodworth, J.

1. Ground 1 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial alleges that the court erred in admitting certain evidence over the objections that it was “irrelevant, and inadmissible.” Such objections are too general, and raise no question for determination by this court. City of Manchester v. Beavers, 38 Ga. App. 338 (3) (144 S. E. 11), and cit.

3. The court charged the jury: “Indirect or circumstantial evidence is that which only tends to establish the issue by proof of various facts sustaining by their consistency the theory or hypothesis claimed. Before you would be authorized to convict on…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. McNaughton v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1911
  2. City of Manchester v. BeaversCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1928
  3. Howard v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1920

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API