Bradley v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bradley v. State

240 S.E.2d 124, 143 Ga. App. 767, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2494

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 11, 1977

Docket54431

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 240 S.E.2d 124 (Bradley 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

Bradley v. State, 240 S.E.2d 124, 143 Ga. App. 767, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2494 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from the denial of an extraordinary motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Held:

Any matter which could have been complained of in the original motion for a new trial will not constitute grounds for an extraordinary motion. Bishop v. State, 117 Ga. App. 93 (159 SE2d 477). This rule applies to the facts of this case. Following conviction, defendant filed an ordinary motion for a new trial, which was denied, and the case was affirmed on appeal. See Bradley v. State, 137 Ga. App. 670 (224 SE2d 778). This extraordinary motion followed. The claimed newly discovered evidence was misconduct of a juror at defendant’s trial. At the hearing on this motion it was shown that defendant’s counsel was aware of the existence of the alleged misconduct of the juror prior to the hearing on the original motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray and Smith, JJ., concur. J. W. Claxton, for appellant. William H. Ison, District Attorney, Michael D. Anderson, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

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

Bell, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from the denial of an extraordinary motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Held:

Any matter which could have been complained of in the original motion for a new trial will not constitute grounds for an extraordinary motion. Bishop v. State, 117 Ga. App. 93 (159 SE2d 477). This rule applies to the facts of this case. Following conviction, defendant filed an ordinary motion for a new trial, which was denied, and the case was affirmed on appeal. See Bradley v. State, 137 Ga. App. 670 (224 SE2d 778). This extraordinary motion followed. The claimed newly discovered evidence was misconduct of a juror at defendant’s trial. At the hearing on this motion it was shown that defendant’s counsel was aware of the existence of the alleged misconduct of the juror prior to the hearing on the original motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray and Smith, JJ., concur. J. W. Claxton, for appellant. William H. Ison, District Attorney, Michael D. Anderson, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 S.E.2d 124, 143 Ga. App. 767, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradley-v-state-gactapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack