Amason v. State
Amason v.The State
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Broyles, P. J.
The conviction of the accused depended wholly upon circumstantial evidence. The court therefore erred in failing, even in the absence of a timely written request, to charge the law of circumstantial • evidence. While “it is immaterial what language is employed to convey this instruction” (Mangum v. State, 5 Ga. App. 445 , 63 8. E. 543; Bush v. State,: 23 Ga. App. 126 , 97 S. E. 554 ), there was no language in the charge in the instant case which sufficiently presented it. Because of this error a new trial is required.
Judgment reversed.
Bloodworth and Stephens,.JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.