Hamilton v. State

• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: LUMPKIN
• Citation: Hamilton v. State, 96 Ga. 301, 22 S.E. 528 (Ga. 1895)
• Decision Date: 13 May 1895
• Parties: HAMILTON. v. STATE.

22 S.E. 528

96 Ga. 301

HAMILTON.

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

May 13, 1895.

Criminal Law — Instructions — Reasonable Doubt—Circumstantial Evidence.

When, in the trial of a criminal case, the evidence against the accused was entirely circumstantial, it was the duty of the judge not only to charge upon the law of reasonable doubt, but also, whether so requested or not, to state to the jury the rule usually applicable in such cases, to the effect that the evidence must connect the accused with the perpetration of the alleged offense, and must not only be consistent with his guilt, but inconsistent with every other reasonable hypothesis.

(Syllabus by the Court)

Error from superior court, Camden county; J. L. Sweat, Judge.

Robert Hamilton brings error from a judgment of conviction. Reversed.

Alex. A. Lawrence and Atkinson & Dun-wody, for plaintiff in error.

W. G. Brantley, Sol. Gen., for the State.

LUMPKIN, J. We shall deal with only one of the questions made by the motion for a new trial in this case. The evidence against the accused was entirely circumstantial, and the presiding judge failed to state the rule of law applicable in criminal cases to proof of this character. It can hardly be doubted that in every criminal case it is the duty of the judge, even without a request, to charge concerning the law of reasonable doubt. There was no complaint that this was not done in the present case; but we think it equally clear that, in a case where the state depended for conviction upon circumstantial evidence alone, it was likewise the duty of the judge, whether so requested or not, to instruct the jury, in substance, that to authorize a verdict of guilty the evidence must connect the accused with the perpetration of the alleged offense, and must not only...