Childers v. State
This text of 139 S.E. 88 (Childers 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.
Opinion
1. It is well settled by repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court that a ground of a motion for a new trial must be complete and understandable within itself. Under this ruling grounds 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 of the motion for a new trial are too defective to be considered by this court.
(a) Grounds 8, 9, and 10 complain of certain language used by the solicitor-general in his concluding argument to the jury, and state that counsel for the defendant moved the court to declare a mistrial on account of such language, but it is not stated therein what ruling was made by the court thereon, or whether or not the court rebuked the solicitor-general and instructed the jury not to consider the alleged improper remarks.
2. One ground of the motion for a new trial was based upon alleged newly discovered evidence. However, the affidavit in support of the witness upon whose newly discovered evidence a new trial was sought failed to give the.names of his associates. In view of that defect the trial ' judge did 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).
3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
139 S.E. 88, 37 Ga. App. 93, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/childers-v-state-gactapp-1927.