Hamilton v. State

• Decision Date: 13 May 1895
• Citation: 22 S.E. 528,96 Ga. 301
• Parties: HAMILTON v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

22 S.E. 528

96 Ga. 301

HAMILTON v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

May 13, 1895

Syllabus by the Court.

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.

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 & Dunwody, 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 be entirely consistent with his guilt, but inconsistent with every other reasonable hypothesis. The failure to give some such instruction, in a close and doubtful case like the present, will entitle the accused to a new trial. The law upon this subject is very concisely and aptly stated in 12 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 879, from which we make the following quotation: "Where the prosecution relies solely upon circumstantial evidence to secure a conviction, it is incumbent on the trial court to instruct the jury as to the law applicable to such proof. No particular form of language is required. If the ideas conveyed are correct, and so expressed as to meet the comprehension of the jury, it is sufficient." And see the cases...