1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Ga.
  4. 212 Ga.
  5. 212 Ga. 206 (1956)
 

BAGLEY v. STATE

19197.

212 Ga. 206 (1956)

91 S.E.2d 506

BAGLEY v. THE STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided February 15, 1956.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Ingram & Tull, for plaintiff in error.

Erwin Mitchell, Solicitor-General, Eugene Cook, Attorney-General, Rubye G. Jackson, contra.

WYATT, Presiding Justice.

1. In so far as the general grounds of the motion for new trial are concerned, it is sufficient to say that the evidence amply supports the verdict finding the defendant guilty of the offense charged.

2. The first and second special grounds of the motion for new trial complain of an excerpt from the charge of the court. The portion of the charge excepted to, after defining direct and circumstantial

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases