Jackson v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Jackson v. State

163 S.E. 899, 174 Ga. 770, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 136

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 16, 1932

DocketNo. 8887

StatusPublished

This text of 163 S.E. 899 (Jackson 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

Jackson v. State, 163 S.E. 899, 174 Ga. 770, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 136 (Ga. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

1. Extraordinary motions for new trial are not favored. The defendant, when on trial, stated to the court and jury that he had confessed, but that the confession was a “frame-up” brought-about by Anderson, who was in jail with h'im. The accused must have known then all that he now incorporates in his motion, and it was his duty promptly to advise his counsel. If such had been done, counsel could and would have quickly questioned the witnesses. Both of the witnesses from whom the newly discovered evidence is produced are felony convicts.

2-. The alleged newly discovered evidence introduced by the accused in his motion for a new trial on extraordinary grounds, together with the counter-showing by the State, makes an issue of conflicting evidence. The trial judge who possessed a more intimate knowledge of the circumstances and the character of the witnesses, overruled and denied the motion. This court must affirm that judgment. To reverse the finding would be to refuse to follow an unbroken line of previous decisions which' are binding authority. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Gilbert, J.

1. Extraordinary motions for new trial are not favored. The defendant, when on trial, stated to the court and jury that he had confessed, but that the confession was a “frame-up” brought-about by Anderson, who was in jail with h'im. The accused must have known then all that he now incorporates in his motion, and it was his duty promptly to advise his counsel. If such had been done, counsel could and would have quickly questioned the witnesses. Both of the witnesses from whom the newly discovered evidence is produced are felony convicts.

2-. The alleged newly discovered evidence introduced by the accused in his motion for a new trial on extraordinary grounds, together with the counter-showing by the State, makes an issue of conflicting evidence. The trial judge who possessed a more intimate knowledge of the circumstances and the character of the witnesses, overruled and denied the motion. This court must affirm that judgment. To reverse the finding would be to refuse to follow an unbroken line of previous decisions which' are binding authority. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 S.E. 899, 174 Ga. 770, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-state-ga-1932.