Jackson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Jackson v. State

36 S.E.2d 208, 73 Ga. App. 278, 1945 Ga. App. LEXIS 443

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 5, 1945

Docket31077.

StatusPublished

This text of 36 S.E.2d 208 (Jackson 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

Jackson v. State, 36 S.E.2d 208, 73 Ga. App. 278, 1945 Ga. App. LEXIS 443 (Ga. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

MacIntyre, J.

1. Where a motion for new trial contains only the general grounds, and the record discloses that the evidence for the State, if credible, was sufficient to support the verdict, the jury being the judges of the weight of the evidence, this court can not disturb the judgment of the trial court. Puckett v. State, 159 230 (125 S. E. 208); Hudgins v. State, 2 Ga. 173 (5). “The law allows [the trial judge] to refuse or grant new trials in the exercise of a legal discretion, but it does not give this court any discretion in the matter. It can only grant new trials where errors of law have been committed, or when the trial judge has abused his discretion in refusing a new trial.” Smith v. State, 91 Ga. 188 (17 S. E. 68).

2. The judge having approved the verdict, we can not, in the light of all the evidence, say that he abused his discretion in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Gardner, J., concur.

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

MacIntyre, J.

1. Where a motion for new trial contains only the general grounds, and the record discloses that the evidence for the State, if credible, was sufficient to support the verdict, the jury being the judges of the weight of the evidence, this court can not disturb the judgment of the trial court. Puckett v. State, 159 230 (125 S. E. 208); Hudgins v. State, 2 Ga. 173 (5). “The law allows [the trial judge] to refuse or grant new trials in the exercise of a legal discretion, but it does not give this court any discretion in the matter. It can only grant new trials where errors of law have been committed, or when the trial judge has abused his discretion in refusing a new trial.” Smith v. State, 91 Ga. 188 (17 S. E. 68).

2. The judge having approved the verdict, we can not, in the light of all the evidence, say that he abused his discretion in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Gardner, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 S.E.2d 208, 73 Ga. App. 278, 1945 Ga. App. LEXIS 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-state-gactapp-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack