Brown v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Brown v. State

164 S.E. 107, 45 Ga. App. 244, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 265

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 30, 1932

Docket22178, 22179

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 164 S.E. 107 (Brown 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

Brown v. State, 164 S.E. 107, 45 Ga. App. 244, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 265 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The word “witnesses,” as employed in the last paragraph of section 6086 of the Civil Code (1910), refers to witnesses whose evidence is to be used on the merits of a case if a new trial is had. But where a new trial is asked in a criminal case on account of newly discovered evidence showing that a juror who sat in the case was biased or prejudiced against the defendant, the fact of such bias or prejudice does not have to be proved on the second trial, for if a new trial should be granted on account of the affidavit showing the juror’s bias or prej- . udice against the accused, this fact has already been proved, and it is highly improbable^ that the same juror will again be put upon the defendant. Therefore, the provisions of the above section of the code as to “supporting affidavits” do not apply. However, it is not ruled that, independently of that section, the trial judge could not require such supporting affidavits to be produced upon the hearing of any motion for a new trial based upon alleged newly discovered evidence where such evidence is that of witnesses. Davis v. State, 150 Ga. 19, 21, 22 (102 S. E. 445).

2. Applying the foregoing ruling to the facts of the instant cases, the special ground of the motion for a new trial based upon alleged newly discovered evidence was not defective and will be considered. The affidavit of the witness setting out such evidence made a prima facie showing that one of the jurors when he became a member of the jury was not perfectly impartial between the State and the accused and that probably he was biased against the defendant; and, as the State made no counter showing, the court erred in overruling that ground of the motion for a new trial in each of these cases.

Judgments reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The word “witnesses,” as employed in the last paragraph of section 6086 of the Civil Code (1910), refers to witnesses whose evidence is to be used on the merits of a case if a new trial is had. But where a new trial is asked in a criminal case on account of newly discovered evidence showing that a juror who sat in the case was biased or prejudiced against the defendant, the fact of such bias or prejudice does not have to be proved on the second trial, for if a new trial should be granted on account of the affidavit showing the juror’s bias or prej- . udice against the accused, this fact has already been proved, and it is highly improbable^ that the same juror will again be put upon the defendant. Therefore, the provisions of the above section of the code as to “supporting affidavits” do not apply. However, it is not ruled that, independently of that section, the trial judge could not require such supporting affidavits to be produced upon the hearing of any motion for a new trial based upon alleged newly discovered evidence where such evidence is that of witnesses. Davis v. State, 150 Ga. 19, 21, 22 (102 S. E. 445).

2. Applying the foregoing ruling to the facts of the instant cases, the special ground of the motion for a new trial based upon alleged newly discovered evidence was not defective and will be considered. The affidavit of the witness setting out such evidence made a prima facie showing that one of the jurors when he became a member of the jury was not perfectly impartial between the State and the accused and that probably he was biased against the defendant; and, as the State made no counter showing, the court erred in overruling that ground of the motion for a new trial in each of these cases.

Judgments reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 S.E. 107, 45 Ga. App. 244, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-state-gactapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack