Sanders v. State

1. The amendment to the motion for a new trial alleges that the evidence showing the intent of the accused to commit the crime charged was circumstantial; that intent was an essential element of the offense, and that for this reason the court erred in failing to' charge the law on circumstantial evidence. There was no request to charge this principle of law. The facts from which the guilt or innocence of the defendant could be drawn were all established by direct proof. In Reddick v. State, 11 Ga. App. 150 (3) (74 S. E. 901), the court said: “When the facts from which the inference of guilt…