From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brant v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Sep 20, 1974
208 S.E.2d 636 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974)

Opinion

49649.

SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 6, 1974.

DECIDED SEPTEMBER 20, 1974.

Burglary. Hall Superior Court. Before Judge Kenyon.

Oliver Walters, James M. Walters, for appellant.

Jeff C. Wayne, District Attorney, Roland H. Stroberg, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.


L. C. Brant was convicted of the offense of burglary and he appeals, enumerating as error the overruling of his motion for new trial on the general grounds. Held:

1. A careful reading of the record discloses that there was ample evidence, though circumstantial, to authorize the verdict. The general grounds are without merit.

2. That the state relied upon circumstantial evidence in procuring the conviction does not require a different result. There was a full and ample charge on the matter of circumstantial evidence, and it became a jury issue as to whether the evidence was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of guilt. Fraser v. State, 55 Ga. 325 (6). This issue was resolved against the defendant, as the jury was authorized under the evidence to do. We find no error of law.

Judgment affirmed. Deen and Stolz, JJ., concur.

SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 6, 1974 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 20, 1974.


Summaries of

Brant v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Sep 20, 1974
208 S.E.2d 636 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974)
Case details for

Brant v. State

Case Details

Full title:BRANT v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Sep 20, 1974

Citations

208 S.E.2d 636 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974)
132 Ga. App. 631

Citing Cases

Paschal v. State

We find such evidence to be clear and convincing on the issue of lack of authority. Ward v. State, 132 Ga.…

Johnson v. Jackson

What are reasonable and probable grounds for suspicion is for the determination of the jury ( Tomblin v. S.…