Ficklin v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Ficklin v. State

149 S.E. 42, 168 Ga. 747, 1929 Ga. LEXIS 229

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 12, 1929

DocketNo. 7172

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 149 S.E. 42 (Ficklin v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ficklin v. State, 149 S.E. 42, 168 Ga. 747, 1929 Ga. LEXIS 229 (Ga. 1929).

Pincite

Opinions

Atkinson, J.

1. The only assignment of error in the bill of exceptions is upon the refusal of the judge to grant a rule nisi calling upon the solicitor-general to show cause why a new trial should not be granted upon an extraordinary motion based on alleged newly discovered evidence, presented to the judge by a defendant who had been convicted of murder without a recommendation. The evidence was of such character as would have authorized the grant of a new trial, but there was no such showing of diligence ón the part of the defendant, or of the attorney representing him prior to his extraordinary motion for a new trial, as would require a reversal of the judgment refusing to entertain the extraordinary motion for a new trial.

2. It was insisted in the argument before this court and in the brief of the attorney for the plaintiff in error that there should be a reversal, because it affirmatively appears from the form of the judgment sent up in the record that the judge failed to exercise a discretion in the matter. This point was not made by the assignment of error, and can not be raised for the first time in the brief or argument by the attorney for the plaintiff in error.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Atkinson, J.

1. The only assignment of error in the bill of exceptions is upon the refusal of the judge to grant a rule nisi calling upon the solicitor-general to show cause why a new trial should not be granted upon an extraordinary motion based on alleged newly discovered evidence, presented to the judge by a defendant who had been convicted of murder without a recommendation. The evidence was of such character as would have authorized the grant of a new trial, but there was no such showing of diligence ón the part of the defendant, or of the attorney representing him prior to his extraordinary motion for a new trial, as would require a reversal of the judgment refusing to entertain the extraordinary motion for a new trial.

2. It was insisted in the argument before this court and in the brief of the attorney for the plaintiff in error that there should be a reversal, because it affirmatively appears from the form of the judgment sent up in the record that the judge failed to exercise a discretion in the matter. This point was not made by the assignment of error, and can not be raised for the first time in the brief or argument by the attorney for the plaintiff in error.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 S.E. 42, 168 Ga. 747, 1929 Ga. LEXIS 229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ficklin-v-state-ga-1929.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack