Darnell v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Darnell v. State

27 S.E.2d 346, 70 Ga. App. 63, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 242

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 15, 1943

Docket30249, 30250.

StatusPublished

This text of 27 S.E.2d 346 (Darnell 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

Darnell v. State, 27 S.E.2d 346, 70 Ga. App. 63, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 242 (Ga. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

Grover O. Darnell and W. G. Darnell were jointly indicted for an assault with, intent to murder. They were tried together, and were convicted of that offense. Bach filed a separate motion for a new trial containing the general grounds and two special grounds. The assignments of error in the two motions are identical. The special grounds are based upon alleged newly discovered evidence. The court did not err in overruling those grounds, since no affidavit by the accused, or their counsel, stating that the alleged newly discovered evidence was not known to them until after the trial, was filed or submitted to the court. The verdict in each ease was amply authorized by the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgments affirmed.

MacIntyre and Ga/rdner, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

Grover O. Darnell and W. G. Darnell were jointly indicted for an assault with, intent to murder. They were tried together, and were convicted of that offense. Bach filed a separate motion for a new trial containing the general grounds and two special grounds. The assignments of error in the two motions are identical. The special grounds are based upon alleged newly discovered evidence. The court did not err in overruling those grounds, since no affidavit by the accused, or their counsel, stating that the alleged newly discovered evidence was not known to them until after the trial, was filed or submitted to the court. The verdict in each ease was amply authorized by the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgments affirmed.

MacIntyre and Ga/rdner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 S.E.2d 346, 70 Ga. App. 63, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darnell-v-state-gactapp-1943.