Vincent v. State ( 1917 )

Hill, J.

1. Where the State offers direct and circumstantial evidence that the defendant committed the crime, and where one of the contentions of the defendant is that another person committed the crime, and he offers circumstantial evidence tending to support such contention, it is not error to omit to charge on the rule respecting circumstantial evidence.

2. The evidence supports the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Fish, G. J., absent.