Arwood v. State

59 Ga. 391
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedAugust 15, 1877
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 59 Ga. 391 (Arwood 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
Arwood v. State, 59 Ga. 391 (Ga. 1877).

Opinion

Bleckley, Judge.

1. The general rule is not controverted, that a new trial will not be granted to give opportunity to impeach a witness by newly discovered evidence; but it is urged that the rule is not applicable where the witness is an only one upon some vital point in the ease. We find no such distinction, recognized in the books. In 3 Johns., 255, the report states that the newly discovered evidence went to impeach the material witness for the prevailing party. The court, in refusing a new trial, held this language: “ A verdict is never set aside to give the party an opportunity of impeaching the credit of witnesses sworn at a former trial. The evidence should be of some material fact which would induce the belief, that if proved to the jury, it would so far influence their minds as to produce a different verdict.” The new evidence presented to us does not affirm any fact in respect to the alleged criminal transaction. What it affirms is, that the chief witness for the state made certain declarations before the trial, which are supposed to be, and perhaps are, [392]*392materially variant, from important evidence which he gave to the court and jury at the trial. It is obvious that this new evidence would be admissible for a single purpose, namely, to discredit the witness. 10 Ga., 513; 13 Ib., 513; Hopkins’ Penal Laws, 419.

2. We cannot find fault with the verdict. It was warranted by the evidence. Opprobious words cannot well justify a deadly combat, beginning in a blow with a pitchfork, and terminating in another stroke with the same implement, producing death; though, in the interval between the two blows, an urgent necessity arose for prosecuting the battle, or desisting and crying for quarter. The prisoner was the assailant, under provocation by. words only, and showed little disposition to decline the combat'. Code, §§4325, 4333. He was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the commission of an unlawful act.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Emmett v. State
205 S.E.2d 231 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1974)
Veasey v. State
119 S.E.2d 346 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1961)
State v. Fuentes
342 P.2d 1080 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1959)
Johnson v. State
27 S.E.2d 749 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1943)
Aycock v. State
4 S.E.2d 221 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Humphrey v. State
147 S.E. 402 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1929)
Newark Fire Insurance v. Reese
139 S.E. 158 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1927)
Burnett v. State
137 S.E. 796 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1927)
Waller v. State
131 S.E. 95 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Reese v. State
116 S.E. 663 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Boney v. State
115 S.E. 279 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Powell v. Commonwealth
112 S.E. 657 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1922)
Norwood v. State
111 S.E. 59 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Story v. State
110 S.E. 326 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Owens v. State
108 S.E. 208 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)
Fountain v. State
107 S.E. 360 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)
Colquitt v. State
107 S.E. 396 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)
Henderson v. State
101 S.E. 917 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1920)
Key v. State
95 S.E. 269 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)
State v. Brown
159 P. 545 (Utah Supreme Court, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 Ga. 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arwood-v-state-ga-1877.