Henderson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Henderson v. State

136 S.E. 333, 36 Ga. App. 303, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 38

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 11, 1927

Docket17764

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 136 S.E. 333 (Henderson 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

Henderson v. State, 136 S.E. 333, 36 Ga. App. 303, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 38 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. “Cumulative evidence to prove an alibi, even if newly discovered, is not cause for a new trial.” Harrison v. State, 83 Ga. 129 (9 S. E. 542); Tipton v. State, 119 Ga. 305 (46 S. E. 436); Hanson v. State, 27 Ga. App. 590 (2) (109 S. E. 523).

(a) Furthermore, in the instant case the affidavits in support of the “newly discovered” witnesses were defective, in that they failed to give the names of their associates. The trial judge, therefore, did not abuse his discretion in refusing to grant a new trial on account of the alleged newly discovered evidence. Ivey v. State, 154 Ga. 63 (6) (113 S. E. 175); Waller v. State, 34 Ga. App. 674 (131 S. E. 95).

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and, the finding of the jury having been approved by the trial court, and no error of law appearing, this court is without authority to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

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