Burnett v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Burnett v. State

137 S.E. 796, 36 Ga. App. 647, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 209

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 12, 1927

Docket17889

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 137 S.E. 796 (Burnett 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

Burnett v. State, 137 S.E. 796, 36 Ga. App. 647, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 209 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. The only ground of the motion for a new trial other than the general grounds is based upon alleged newly discovered evidence,-the only effect of which would be to impeach a witness for the State. Even “though the witness sought to be impeached by newly discovered evidence was the only witness against the.prisoner upon a vital point in the case, if the sole effect of the evidence would be to impeach the witness a new trial will not be granted.” Arwood v. State, 59 Ga. 391; Levining v. State, [648]*64813 Ga. 513; Wright v. State, 34 Ga. 110 (2); Jackson v. State, 93 Ga. 190 (18 S. E. 401); Haynes v. State, 18 Ga. App. 741 (3), 742, 743 (90 S. E. 485), and cit. “An affidavit in support of the witness upon whose newly discovered evidence a new trial is sought must give the names of his associates [italics ours], a statement that he> keeps good company not being sufficient to meet this requirement, which is necessary,to enable the prosecution to make a counter-showing; and where such affidavit does not comply with this requirement, the trial judge does not abuse his discretion by refusing to grant a new trial on this ground.” Ivey v. State, 154 Ga. 63 (6) (113 S. E. 175). Under the foregoing rulings the court properly refused to grant a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence.

2. There was ample evidence to support the finding of the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. The only ground of the motion for a new trial other than the general grounds is based upon alleged newly discovered evidence,-the only effect of which would be to impeach a witness for the State. Even “though the witness sought to be impeached by newly discovered evidence was the only witness against the.prisoner upon a vital point in the case, if the sole effect of the evidence would be to impeach the witness a new trial will not be granted.” Arwood v. State, 59 Ga. 391; Levining v. State, [648]*64813 Ga. 513; Wright v. State, 34 Ga. 110 (2); Jackson v. State, 93 Ga. 190 (18 S. E. 401); Haynes v. State, 18 Ga. App. 741 (3), 742, 743 (90 S. E. 485), and cit. “An affidavit in support of the witness upon whose newly discovered evidence a new trial is sought must give the names of his associates [italics ours], a statement that he> keeps good company not being sufficient to meet this requirement, which is necessary,to enable the prosecution to make a counter-showing; and where such affidavit does not comply with this requirement, the trial judge does not abuse his discretion by refusing to grant a new trial on this ground.” Ivey v. State, 154 Ga. 63 (6) (113 S. E. 175). Under the foregoing rulings the court properly refused to grant a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence.

2. There was ample evidence to support the finding of the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 S.E. 796, 36 Ga. App. 647, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burnett-v-state-gactapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack