Bailey v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bailey v. State

135 S.E. 520, 36 Ga. App. 129, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 824

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 9, 1926

Docket17638

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 135 S.E. 520 (Bailey 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

Bailey v. State, 135 S.E. 520, 36 Ga. App. 129, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 824 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The alleged newly discovered evidence is not of such a character as would probably produce a different verdict upon another trial. The “newly discovered” witness is a brother of the accused,'lives with him, and was present at the trial of this case. The judge, in passing on the ground of the motion for a new trial based on this alleged newly discovered evidence, was authorized to find that this evidence would have been discovered before the trial if the defendant or his counsel had exercised proper diligence in the premises. Furthermore, the supporting.affidavit of the witness in question is defective, in that it fails to give the names of his associates. See Smith v. State, 34 Ga. App. 172 (1) (128 S. E. 699), and citation.

2. The verdict was authorized by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Luhe, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The alleged newly discovered evidence is not of such a character as would probably produce a different verdict upon another trial. The “newly discovered” witness is a brother of the accused,'lives with him, and was present at the trial of this case. The judge, in passing on the ground of the motion for a new trial based on this alleged newly discovered evidence, was authorized to find that this evidence would have been discovered before the trial if the defendant or his counsel had exercised proper diligence in the premises. Furthermore, the supporting.affidavit of the witness in question is defective, in that it fails to give the names of his associates. See Smith v. State, 34 Ga. App. 172 (1) (128 S. E. 699), and citation.

2. The verdict was authorized by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Luhe, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 S.E. 520, 36 Ga. App. 129, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-state-gactapp-1926.

Opinion

2. The verdict was authorized by the evidence.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack