Curtiss v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Curtiss v. State

302 S.E.2d 1, 165 Ga. App. 464, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 1908

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 17, 1983

Docket65594

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 302 S.E.2d 1 (Curtiss 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

Curtiss v. State, 302 S.E.2d 1, 165 Ga. App. 464, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 1908 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault upon the person of another with a certain screwdriver (a deadly weapon). Defendant’s motion for new trial was filed, heard and denied, and he appeals. Held:

The sole enumeration of error is based upon a ground of the defendant’s motion for new trial as to newly discovered and material evidence which would allegedly produce a verdict different from the conviction, an eyewitness having been allegedly found to the alleged altercation between the defendant and the victim. Defendant as movant contends this eyewitness was not available and whose whereabouts were unknown at the time of the trial. At the trial the victim’s girl friend testified that her brother (the alleged unavailable witness) was also present at the scene where the victim contends the defendant stabbed him with the screwdriver. It appears that at the motion for new trial hearing the defendant was knowledgeable as to the identity of this eyewitness, yet he did not exercise due diligence to locate him and no subpoena was issued for this witness to appear at the trial. Further, there was no attempt made to obtain a continuance of the case so that this witness could be located. The trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial. Based upon the above facts, the defendant failed to satisfy the criteria with reference to newly discovered evidence as set forth in Bell v. State, 227 Ga. 800, 805 (183 SE2d 357). See also Hamilton v. State, 119 Ga. App. 196, 197 (2) (166 SE2d 735); Coalley v. State, 146 Ga. App. 526 (1) (246 SE2d 512).

Judgment affirmed.

Shulman, C. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

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

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault upon the person of another with a certain screwdriver (a deadly weapon). Defendant’s motion for new trial was filed, heard and denied, and he appeals. Held:

The sole enumeration of error is based upon a ground of the defendant’s motion for new trial as to newly discovered and material evidence which would allegedly produce a verdict different from the conviction, an eyewitness having been allegedly found to the alleged altercation between the defendant and the victim. Defendant as movant contends this eyewitness was not available and whose whereabouts were unknown at the time of the trial. At the trial the victim’s girl friend testified that her brother (the alleged unavailable witness) was also present at the scene where the victim contends the defendant stabbed him with the screwdriver. It appears that at the motion for new trial hearing the defendant was knowledgeable as to the identity of this eyewitness, yet he did not exercise due diligence to locate him and no subpoena was issued for this witness to appear at the trial. Further, there was no attempt made to obtain a continuance of the case so that this witness could be located. The trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial. Based upon the above facts, the defendant failed to satisfy the criteria with reference to newly discovered evidence as set forth in Bell v. State, 227 Ga. 800, 805 (183 SE2d 357). See also Hamilton v. State, 119 Ga. App. 196, 197 (2) (166 SE2d 735); Coalley v. State, 146 Ga. App. 526 (1) (246 SE2d 512).

Judgment affirmed.

Shulman, C. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 S.E.2d 1, 165 Ga. App. 464, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 1908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curtiss-v-state-gactapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack