Lemon v. State

Jordan, Justice.

The appellant was convicted of being a peeping tom pursuant to Code Ann. § 26-3002 and appeals.

1. The appellant contends that the evidence produced at the trial was circumstantial only and was insufficient to connect him with the crime. A reading of the record however shows that the appellant’s conviction was not based solely on circumstantial evidence. The prosecutrix positively testified that she saw the appellant looking through her windows late at night and in the early morning. This direct evidence was sufficient to link the appellant to the crime since it points to the…