Legal Opinion

Collier v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided August 17, 1922No. 3280PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHines, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.)

The case not depending on circumstantial evidence alone, a new trial will not be granted because of the failure of the court to charge the rule applicable to the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to authorize a conviction. Where the case is one wholly of circumstantial evidence, this principle must be given in charge without request. Hamilton v. State, 96 Ga. 301 (22 S. E. 528); Weaver v. State, 135 Ga. 317 (2) (69 S. E. 488); The rule is otherwise when the case is a compound of direct and circumstantial evidence, and does not rest upon circumstantial…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Weaver v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1910
  2. Stephen v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1852
  3. Cantrell v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1913
  4. Hamilton v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1895
  5. Nobles v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Strickland v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1928
  2. Hall v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1977
  3. Porter v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1946
  4. Jeffords v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1926
  5. Crumady v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1929

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API