Brant v. State, 208 S.E.2d 636 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974). · Go Syfert
Search
Brant v. State, 208 S.E.2d 636 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Moss v. Protective Life Insurance (gactapp, 1992-02-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Moss v. Protective Life Insurance
Ga. Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
Co. v. Morris, 132 Ga. App. 631, 642 ( 208 SE2d 637 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) James v. Aetna Life Insurance
Ga. Ct. App. · 1982 · confidence medium
Co. v. Morris, 132 Ga. App. 631, 642 ( 208 SE2d 637 ); Prudential Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Nassar
Mass. · 1980 · confidence medium
Co. v. Morris, 132 Ga. App. 631, 642 (1974) (defining “violent” similarly in context of accident insurance policy). 10 In some situations means were found to procure discharge without going the gubernatorial route.
Brant
v.
the State
49649.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Sep 20, 1974.
208 S.E.2d 636
Oliver & Walters, James M. Walters, for appellant., JeffC. Wayne, District Attorney, Roland H. Stroberg, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Eberhardt, Deen, Stolz.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
Eberhardt, Presiding Judge.

L. C. Brant was convicted of the offense of burglary and he appeals, enumerating as error the overruling of his motion for new trial on the general grounds. Held:

1. A careful reading of the record discloses that there was ample evidence, though circumstantial, to authorize the verdict. The general grounds are without merit.

2. That the state relied upon circumstantial evidence in procuring the conviction does not require a different result. There was a full and ample charge on the matter of circumstantial evidence, and it became a jury issue as to whether the evidence was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of guilt. Fraser v. State, 55 Ga. 325 (6). This issue was resolved against the defendant, as the jury was authorized under the evidence to do. We find no error of law.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen and Stolz, JJ, concur.