Harper v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Harper v. State

177 S.E. 886, 50 Ga. App. 298, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 745

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 18, 1934

Docket24366

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 177 S.E. 886 (Harper 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

Harper v. State, 177 S.E. 886, 50 Ga. App. 298, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 745 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Beoyees, O. J.

1. It does not appear that the alleged newly discovered evidence offered in support of the motion for a new trial could have been obtained by the defendant at the trial by the exercise of due diligence; and although the evidence was impeaching in its character, it, if credited by the jury, would be likely to produce a different verdict on another trial; and “the real ultimate criterion by which the merit of such testimony should be measured is the probability of a different result;” and when that probability appears, “the ends of justice require that a new trial be granted.” Nolan v. State, 14 Ga. App. 824 (82 S. E. 377) ; Paden v. State, 17 Ga. App. 112 (86 S. E. 287) ; Carson v. State, 20 Ga. App. 82 (92 S. E. 549) ; Todd v. Jackson, 24 Ga. App. 519 (101 S. E. 192) ; Spaulding v. State, 25 Ga. App. 194 (102 S. E. 907).

2. When the foregoing ruling is applied to the facts of the instant case, “the ends of justice require that a new trial be granted.” In this connection, the able and conscientious associate State counsel, who resides in the county where the defendant was tried and who assisted in his prosecution, states in his brief that he would like to see a new trial granted the defendant as “this will insure equal justice to all.”

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Gueimy, JJ., concur. Ira Carlisle, C. Boater Jones, for plaintiff in error. Rolert B. Short, solicitor-general, W. II. Duckworth, contra.

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

Beoyees, O. J.

1. It does not appear that the alleged newly discovered evidence offered in support of the motion for a new trial could have been obtained by the defendant at the trial by the exercise of due diligence; and although the evidence was impeaching in its character, it, if credited by the jury, would be likely to produce a different verdict on another trial; and “the real ultimate criterion by which the merit of such testimony should be measured is the probability of a different result;” and when that probability appears, “the ends of justice require that a new trial be granted.” Nolan v. State, 14 Ga. App. 824 (82 S. E. 377) ; Paden v. State, 17 Ga. App. 112 (86 S. E. 287) ; Carson v. State, 20 Ga. App. 82 (92 S. E. 549) ; Todd v. Jackson, 24 Ga. App. 519 (101 S. E. 192) ; Spaulding v. State, 25 Ga. App. 194 (102 S. E. 907).

2. When the foregoing ruling is applied to the facts of the instant case, “the ends of justice require that a new trial be granted.” In this connection, the able and conscientious associate State counsel, who resides in the county where the defendant was tried and who assisted in his prosecution, states in his brief that he would like to see a new trial granted the defendant as “this will insure equal justice to all.”

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Gueimy, JJ., concur. Ira Carlisle, C. Boater Jones, for plaintiff in error. Rolert B. Short, solicitor-general, W. II. Duckworth, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 S.E. 886, 50 Ga. App. 298, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harper-v-state-gactapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack