Hart v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hart v. State

137 S.E. 798, 36 Ga. App. 673, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 241

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 12, 1927

Docket17970

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 137 S.E. 798 (Hart 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

Hart v. State, 137 S.E. 798, 36 Ga. App. 673, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 241 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. The evidence in this case is entirely circumstantial, but excludes every other reasonable hypothesis .than that of the guilt of the accused.

2. The ground of the motion for a new trial based on alleged newly discovered evidence is not considered, (1) because the affidavits in support of the witnesses upon whose newly discovered evidence a new trial is sought fail to name any associate of such witnesses. Civil Code (1910), § 6086; Ivey v. State, 154 Ga. 63 (113 S. E. 175); Carpenter v. State, 35 Ga. App. 349 (133 S. E. 350); (2) because the affidavit of the defendant and his counsel, seeking to show diligence, merely stated that they “did not know of the existence of the evidence of said witnesses . . before the trial of said case, and that same could not have been discovered by the exercise of ordinary care;” this being a mere conclusion, without basic facts by which the court could judge whether or not they used due diligence, and whether or not the evidence could have been discovered before by the exercise of such diligence. Taylor v. State, 132 Ga. 235 (3) (63 S. E. 1156); Tyre v. State, 35 Ga. App. 579 (134 S. E. 178). Furthermore, the counter-affidavit of the sheriff was that the said witnesses were under indictment for manufacturing liquor and were fugitives from justice.

3. In the absence of a timely written request for fuller instructions, the following charge of the court sufficiently informed the jury that the burden was on the State to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt: “The law presumes him to be innocent until the contrary appears by proof which satisfies your minds beyond a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. A reasonable doubt is such a doubt as an honest juror would have in search for the truth.” Mathis v. State, 35 Ga. App. 583 (134 S. E. 186).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

1. The evidence in this case is entirely circumstantial, but excludes every other reasonable hypothesis .than that of the guilt of the accused.

2. The ground of the motion for a new trial based on alleged newly discovered evidence is not considered, (1) because the affidavits in support of the witnesses upon whose newly discovered evidence a new trial is sought fail to name any associate of such witnesses. Civil Code (1910), § 6086; Ivey v. State, 154 Ga. 63 (113 S. E. 175); Carpenter v. State, 35 Ga. App. 349 (133 S. E. 350); (2) because the affidavit of the defendant and his counsel, seeking to show diligence, merely stated that they “did not know of the existence of the evidence of said witnesses . . before the trial of said case, and that same could not have been discovered by the exercise of ordinary care;” this being a mere conclusion, without basic facts by which the court could judge whether or not they used due diligence, and whether or not the evidence could have been discovered before by the exercise of such diligence. Taylor v. State, 132 Ga. 235 (3) (63 S. E. 1156); Tyre v. State, 35 Ga. App. 579 (134 S. E. 178). Furthermore, the counter-affidavit of the sheriff was that the said witnesses were under indictment for manufacturing liquor and were fugitives from justice.

3. In the absence of a timely written request for fuller instructions, the following charge of the court sufficiently informed the jury that the burden was on the State to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt: “The law presumes him to be innocent until the contrary appears by proof which satisfies your minds beyond a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. A reasonable doubt is such a doubt as an honest juror would have in search for the truth.” Mathis v. State, 35 Ga. App. 583 (134 S. E. 186).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 S.E. 798, 36 Ga. App. 673, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hart-v-state-gactapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack