FACTS: Four defendants were convicted of dog fighting in that they unlawfully allowed a dog to fight another dog in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-12-37. They were also convicted of gambling in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-12-21(a)(1). On appeal, the court rejected the constitutional attacks on § 16-12-37. Next, the court concluded from the circumstantial evidence that a rational trier of fact could have found one defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offenses of allowing dog fighting to take place and of gambling. With respect to the remaining three defendants, the court reached a different result. The court found the State had not offered any evidence that linked these defendants to the area where the dog fighting and gambling were taking place. The court concluded that the evidence in the record was clearly insufficient to support the convictions against these defendants in this case. The court affirmed the convictions only with respect to one defendant and reversed the convictions as to the remaining three defendants.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the trial court's judgment that convicted the four defendants of dog fighting and gambling only with respect to one defendant and reversed the trial court's judgment with respect to the remaining three defendants.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?