Tweedell v. State

5 Citing cases

  1. Brown v. State

    619 S.E.2d 759 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)

    Only where the evidence is insupportable as a matter of law may the jury's verdict be disturbed, even where the evidence is circumstantial.Tweedell v. State, 248 Ga.App. 187, 189 ( 546 SE2d 306) (2001) (citation and punctuation omitted). The evidence in this case was far from overwhelming, nevertheless, we will not disturb the jury's verdict.

  2. McMillan v. State

    266 Ga. App. 729 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 4 times

    To support a verdict, circumstantial evidence need exclude only reasonable hypotheses, not exclude every inference or hypothesis except that of a defendant's guilt and whether circumstances are sufficient for that purpose was a question for the jury which, here, resolved the conflicts against McMillan. Smith v. State, 257 Ga. 381, 382 ( 359 SE2d 662) (1987); Tweedell v. State, 248 Ga. App. 187, 189 ( 546 SE2d 306) (2001); Brown v. State, 245 Ga. App. 706, 709 (1) ( 538 SE2d 788) (2000). The evidence here of theft by taking from Helmac was legally sufficient.

  3. Smith v. State

    567 S.E.2d 322 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 4 times

    Only where the evidence is unsupportable as a matter of law may the jury's verdict be disturbed, even where the evidence is circumstantial.Smith v. State, 257 Ga. 381, 382 ( 359 S.E.2d 662) (1987); Tweedell v. State, 248 Ga. App. 187, 189 ( 546 S.E.2d 306) (2001).Brown v. State, 245 Ga. App. 706, 709 (1) ( 538 S.E.2d 788) (2000).

  4. Winter v. State

    252 Ga. App. 790 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 13 times

    Further, to support a verdict, circumstantial evidence need only exclude reasonable hypotheses, not exclude every inference or hypothesis except that of the defendant's guilt. Smith v. State, 257 Ga. 381, 382 ( 359 S.E.2d 662) (1987); Tweedell v. State, 248 Ga. App. 187, 189 ( 546 S.E.2d 306) (2001). Whether circumstances were sufficient in this case to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of the defendant's guilt was a question for the jury.

  5. Johnson v. State

    554 S.E.2d 587 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 7 times

    Moreover, as noted below, to support a verdict, circumstantial evidence need only exclude reasonable hypotheses, not exclude every inference or hypothesis except that of the defendant's guilt. Smith v. State, 257 Ga. 381, 382 ( 359 S.E.2d 662) (1987); Tweedell v. State, 248 Ga. App. 187, 189 ( 546 S.E.2d 306) (2001). Whether circumstances were sufficient in this case to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of the defendant's guilt was substantially a question for the jury.