Deen v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Deen v. State

140 S.E. 427, 37 Ga. App. 377, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 692

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 16, 1927

Docket18389

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 140 S.E. 427 (Deen 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

Deen v. State, 140 S.E. 427, 37 Ga. App. 377, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 692 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Brotles, C. J.

1. Where a ground of a motion for a new trial is predicated upon alleged newly discovered evidence, the failure of the movant to obtain that evidence before the trial does» not furnish ground for a new trial, where the affidavits of the movant and his counsel merely recite “in general terms that they, did not know of such evidence before the trial of the ease, and could not, by the exercise of ordinary diligence, have discovered it, without any reason being- shown why it could not have been discovered.” Roy v. State, 140 Ga. 223 (2) (78 S. E. 846); Taylor v. State, 132 Ga. 235 (3), 237 (63 S. E. 1116). Under the above-stated ruling and the facts of the instant case the court did not err in overruling the grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial.

2. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Brotles, C. J.

1. Where a ground of a motion for a new trial is predicated upon alleged newly discovered evidence, the failure of the movant to obtain that evidence before the trial does» not furnish ground for a new trial, where the affidavits of the movant and his counsel merely recite “in general terms that they, did not know of such evidence before the trial of the ease, and could not, by the exercise of ordinary diligence, have discovered it, without any reason being- shown why it could not have been discovered.” Roy v. State, 140 Ga. 223 (2) (78 S. E. 846); Taylor v. State, 132 Ga. 235 (3), 237 (63 S. E. 1116). Under the above-stated ruling and the facts of the instant case the court did not err in overruling the grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial.

2. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 S.E. 427, 37 Ga. App. 377, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deen-v-state-gactapp-1927.

Opinion

2. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack