Aiken v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Aiken v. State

168 S.E. 34, 176 Ga. 338, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 67

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 15, 1933

DocketNo. 9007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 168 S.E. 34 (Aiken v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aiken v. State, 168 S.E. 34, 176 Ga. 338, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 67 (Ga. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

1. “Applications for new trial on tlie ground of newly discovered evidence are not favored, .. . and it must . . appear that the newly discovered evidence is not cumulative only nor solely to impeach the credit of a witness, and that the probable effect thereof, if another trial be had, will be to produce a different verdict.” Burge v. State, 133 Ga. 431 (2) (66 S. E. 243. See also Rogers v. State, 129 Ga. 589 (59 S. E. 288); Ivey v. State, 154 Ga. 63(5) (113 S. E. 175); Coggeshall v. Park, 162 Ga. 78 (132 S. E. 632).

2. The alleged newly discovered evidence as fully set forth in the statement of facts was not of such character as to require the grant of a new trial on extraordinary motion. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Louis H. Foster, Lawton Nalley, John W. Thomas, Len B. Quillet) eau, and F. A. Bowers, for plaintiff in error. George M. Napier, attorney-general, John A. Boylcin, solicitor-general, T. B. Qress, assistant attorney-general, J. W. LeCraw, and FI. A. Stephens, contra.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Atkinson, J.

1. “Applications for new trial on tlie ground of newly discovered evidence are not favored, .. . and it must . . appear that the newly discovered evidence is not cumulative only nor solely to impeach the credit of a witness, and that the probable effect thereof, if another trial be had, will be to produce a different verdict.” Burge v. State, 133 Ga. 431 (2) (66 S. E. 243. See also Rogers v. State, 129 Ga. 589 (59 S. E. 288); Ivey v. State, 154 Ga. 63(5) (113 S. E. 175); Coggeshall v. Park, 162 Ga. 78 (132 S. E. 632).

2. The alleged newly discovered evidence as fully set forth in the statement of facts was not of such character as to require the grant of a new trial on extraordinary motion. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Louis H. Foster, Lawton Nalley, John W. Thomas, Len B. Quillet) eau, and F. A. Bowers, for plaintiff in error. George M. Napier, attorney-general, John A. Boylcin, solicitor-general, T. B. Qress, assistant attorney-general, J. W. LeCraw, and FI. A. Stephens, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 S.E. 34, 176 Ga. 338, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aiken-v-state-ga-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack