Calhoun v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Calhoun v. State

87 S.E. 762, 17 Ga. App. 515, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 739

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 20, 1916

Docket6924

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 87 S.E. 762 (Calhoun 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

Calhoun v. State, 87 S.E. 762, 17 Ga. App. 515, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 739 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

1. The rule under which, if a witness swears willingly and knowingly falsely in a material matter, his testimony ought to be rejected entirely unless corroborated by the facts and circumstances of the case, is addressed to the mind and conscience of the jury, who are at. last the final judges of the credibility of each and every witness.

2. The evidence introduced on the trial was sufficient to. authorize the conviction of the accused of the offense of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors, and the jury were warranted in finding that the attempted impeachment was unsuccessful, although there was plain proof of previous contradictory statements on the part of the prosecuting witness, and even though he was not corroborated. Taylor v. State, 5 Ga. App. 237 (4), 240 (62 S. E. 1048); Jolly v. State, 5 Ga. App. 454 (63 S.E. 520); Chatman v. State, 8 Ga. App. 842 (70 S. E. 188).

3. The court did not err in overruling the grounds of the motion for a new [516]*516trial based upon alleged newly discovered evidence, because the character of the affiants relied upon to give the newly discovered testimony was not accredited as required by law (Williams v. State, 9 Ga. App. 818 (2), 72 S. E. 301); and even if these witnesses had been properly vouched for, it is not made to appear that the trial judge abused his discretion in holding that the plaintiff' in error, in not sooner procuring the testimony, failed to exercise due diligence; since one of the witnesses whose testimony was discovered after the trial was present at the trial, and the other was actually sworn as a witness for the defendant. • Judgment affirmed.

Decided January 20, 1916.

Accusation of sale of liquor; from city court of Newnan — Judge Post. August 27, 1915.

J. 0. Newman, for plaintiff in error. W. L. Stallings, solicitor, contra.

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

Russell, C. J.

1. The rule under which, if a witness swears willingly and knowingly falsely in a material matter, his testimony ought to be rejected entirely unless corroborated by the facts and circumstances of the case, is addressed to the mind and conscience of the jury, who are at. last the final judges of the credibility of each and every witness.

2. The evidence introduced on the trial was sufficient to. authorize the conviction of the accused of the offense of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors, and the jury were warranted in finding that the attempted impeachment was unsuccessful, although there was plain proof of previous contradictory statements on the part of the prosecuting witness, and even though he was not corroborated. Taylor v. State, 5 Ga. App. 237 (4), 240 (62 S. E. 1048); Jolly v. State, 5 Ga. App. 454 (63 S.E. 520); Chatman v. State, 8 Ga. App. 842 (70 S. E. 188).

3. The court did not err in overruling the grounds of the motion for a new [516]*516trial based upon alleged newly discovered evidence, because the character of the affiants relied upon to give the newly discovered testimony was not accredited as required by law (Williams v. State, 9 Ga. App. 818 (2), 72 S. E. 301); and even if these witnesses had been properly vouched for, it is not made to appear that the trial judge abused his discretion in holding that the plaintiff' in error, in not sooner procuring the testimony, failed to exercise due diligence; since one of the witnesses whose testimony was discovered after the trial was present at the trial, and the other was actually sworn as a witness for the defendant. • Judgment affirmed.

Decided January 20, 1916.

Accusation of sale of liquor; from city court of Newnan — Judge Post. August 27, 1915.

J. 0. Newman, for plaintiff in error. W. L. Stallings, solicitor, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 S.E. 762, 17 Ga. App. 515, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calhoun-v-state-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack