11717.
Decided November 9, 1920.
Conviction of larceny of automobile; from Randolph superior court — Judge Worrill. May 29, 1920.
Failure to charge on circumstantial evidence, and the charge given as to admissions and confessions (in the language of the Penal Code, § 1031), were complained of in the motion for a new trial.. It was contended that no confession was proved, though statements in the nature of admissions were shown, and that this charge tended to impress on the jury that the defendant had confessed guilt. There was no request to charge on circumstantial evidence.
Charles W. Worrill, for plaintiff in error.
B. T. Castellow, solicitor-general, R. R. Arnold, contra.
The conviction of the defendant did not depend entirely upon circumstantial evidence; the evidence, circumstantial and direct, amply authorized the verdict, and none of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial is meritorious.
Judgment affirmed.
Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.
25 Ga. App. 755
Nothing yet... Still searching!
Nothing yet... Still searching!