Should Courts And Juries Believe In A Testimony The Facts Of Which Are Implausible Impossible Or Inherently Doubtful ? In Patton v. State, 117 Ga. 230 (43 S.E. 533) (1903), the Supreme Court held: Courts and juries are not bound to believe testimony as to facts incredible, impossible, or inherently improbable. Great physical laws of the universe are witnesses in each case, which can not be impeached by man, even though speaking under the sanction of an oath. Id. In Patton, the case turned on whether a witness could have recognized the defendant from the sound of his voice. The witness barely knew the defendant, and the voice came from a considerable distance. Id. at 233. The court held that, under these circumstances, the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. Id. The high court explained that when testing the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court cannot consider the credibility of witnesses, except that the court may hold that a witness's testimony is to be accorded no value under this circumstance, i.e., when it is not in accord with natural laws, or is improbable, incredible, or seeks to establish facts which are impossible, or which, if not impossible, must in their very nature be uncertain, vague, indefinite, and insufficient to remove reasonable doubts. Brandon v. State, 241 Ga. App. 887, 889 (2) (528 S.E.2d 809) (2000).