Key v. State

95 S.E. 269, 21 Ga. App. 795, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 530
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMarch 6, 1918
Docket9416
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 95 S.E. 269 (Key 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
Key v. State, 95 S.E. 269, 21 Ga. App. 795, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 530 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. The only ground of the motion for a new trial other than the general grounds is based upon alleged newly discovered evidence, the only effect of which would be to impeach the chief witness for the State. “Though the witness sought to be impeached by newly discovered evidence was the only witness against the prisoner upon a vital point in the case, if the sole effect of the evidence would- be to impeach the witness a new trial will not be granted.” Arwood v. State, 59 Ga. 391 (1); Levining v. State, 13 Ga. 513 (1); Wright v. State, 34 Ga. 110 (2); Jackson v. State, 93 Ga. 190 (18 S. E. 401); Haynes v. State, 18 Ga. App. 741 (3), 742, 743 (90 S. E. 485), and cases cited.

[796]*796Decided March 6, 1918. Indictment for forgery; from White superior court — Judge J. 'B. Jones. November 10, 1917. C. H. Edwards, T. F. Underwood, for plaintiff in error. Robert McMillan, solicitor-general, contra.

2. There was ample evidence to support the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur.

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

Related

Williams v. State
56 S.E.2d 922 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1949)
Johnson v. State
27 S.E.2d 749 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1943)
Bonner v. State
155 S.E. 531 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)
Newark Fire Insurance v. Reese
139 S.E. 158 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1927)
Caswell v. State
120 S.E. 21 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Clark v. State
118 S.E. 596 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Reese v. State
116 S.E. 663 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Shirley v. State
111 S.E. 740 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Cannon v. State
111 S.E. 676 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Norwood v. State
111 S.E. 59 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Story v. State
110 S.E. 326 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Owens v. State
108 S.E. 208 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)
Ralph v. State
107 S.E. 574 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)
Colquitt v. State
107 S.E. 396 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)
Taylor v. State
105 S.E. 377 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1920)
Oglesbee v. State
105 S.E. 51 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1920)
Henderson v. State
101 S.E. 917 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 S.E. 269, 21 Ga. App. 795, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/key-v-state-gactapp-1918.