Colwell v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Colwell v. State

166 S.E. 445, 46 Ga. App. 55, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 42

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 17, 1932

Docket22621

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 166 S.E. 445 (Colwell 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

Colwell v. State, 166 S.E. 445, 46 Ga. App. 55, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 42 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Broxles, C. J.

1. Under numerous and repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of the Court of Appeals, the judgment of the trial court overruling a motion for a- new trial, based solely upon alleged newly discovered evidence, will not be reversed, where such evidence is merely cumulative and impeaching. This is especially true in extraordinary motions for a new trial, as such motions are not favored by the courts and a stricter rule has been applied to them. Norman v. Goode, 121 Ga. 449 (49 S. E. 268).

2. “The extraordinary motions or cases contemplated by the statute are such as do not ordinarily occur in the transaction of human affairs, as when a man has been convicted of murder and it afterwards appears that the supposed deceased is still alive, or where one is convicted on the testimony of a witness who is subsequently found guilty of perjury in giving that testimony, or where there has been some providential cause, and cases of like character.” Cox v. Hillyer, 65 Ga. 57 (2); Teasley v. Pittman, 40 Ga. App. 22 (148 S. E. 600).

3. Applying the foregoing rulings to the facts of the instant case, the trial judge did not err in overruling the extraordinary motion for a new trial, which was based solely upon alleged newly discovered evidence that was merely cumulative and impeaching in its character.

Judgment affirmed.

Hooper, J., concurs. MacIntyre, J., not presiding.

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

Broxles, C. J.

1. Under numerous and repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of the Court of Appeals, the judgment of the trial court overruling a motion for a- new trial, based solely upon alleged newly discovered evidence, will not be reversed, where such evidence is merely cumulative and impeaching. This is especially true in extraordinary motions for a new trial, as such motions are not favored by the courts and a stricter rule has been applied to them. Norman v. Goode, 121 Ga. 449 (49 S. E. 268).

2. “The extraordinary motions or cases contemplated by the statute are such as do not ordinarily occur in the transaction of human affairs, as when a man has been convicted of murder and it afterwards appears that the supposed deceased is still alive, or where one is convicted on the testimony of a witness who is subsequently found guilty of perjury in giving that testimony, or where there has been some providential cause, and cases of like character.” Cox v. Hillyer, 65 Ga. 57 (2); Teasley v. Pittman, 40 Ga. App. 22 (148 S. E. 600).

3. Applying the foregoing rulings to the facts of the instant case, the trial judge did not err in overruling the extraordinary motion for a new trial, which was based solely upon alleged newly discovered evidence that was merely cumulative and impeaching in its character.

Judgment affirmed.

Hooper, J., concurs. MacIntyre, J., not presiding.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 S.E. 445, 46 Ga. App. 55, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colwell-v-state-gactapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack