Arnall v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Arnall v. State

81 S.E. 366, 14 Ga. App. 472, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 340

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 18, 1914

Docket5501

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 81 S.E. 366 (Arnall v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arnall v. State, 81 S.E. 366, 14 Ga. App. 472, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 340 (Ga. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, J.

1. When alleged newly discovered evidence is largely impeaching in its character, and where it is apparent that by the exercise of ordinary diligence it could have been obtained in time for the trial, it is not an abuse of discretion on the part of the court to refuse a motion for a new trial based on such evidence. Roberts v. State, 3 Ga. 310; Campbell v. State, 100 Ga. 267 (28 S. E. 71); Hunt v. State, 81 Ga. 143 (5) (7 S. E. 142); Hardy v. State, 117 Ga. 40 (43 S. E. 434); Corley v. State, 87 Ga. 332 (13 S. E. 556).

2. A ground of a motion for new trial based upon the alleged relationship of jurors to an alleged prosecutor can not be considered unless supported by affidavits.

3. No error of law was committed upon the trial, the evidence authorized the verdict, and the discretion of the trial judge in refusing a new trial can not be disturbed. Judgment affirmed.

Roan, J., absent.

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

Wade, J.

1. When alleged newly discovered evidence is largely impeaching in its character, and where it is apparent that by the exercise of ordinary diligence it could have been obtained in time for the trial, it is not an abuse of discretion on the part of the court to refuse a motion for a new trial based on such evidence. Roberts v. State, 3 Ga. 310; Campbell v. State, 100 Ga. 267 (28 S. E. 71); Hunt v. State, 81 Ga. 143 (5) (7 S. E. 142); Hardy v. State, 117 Ga. 40 (43 S. E. 434); Corley v. State, 87 Ga. 332 (13 S. E. 556).

2. A ground of a motion for new trial based upon the alleged relationship of jurors to an alleged prosecutor can not be considered unless supported by affidavits.

3. No error of law was committed upon the trial, the evidence authorized the verdict, and the discretion of the trial judge in refusing a new trial can not be disturbed. Judgment affirmed.

Roan, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 S.E. 366, 14 Ga. App. 472, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnall-v-state-gactapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack