Knight v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Knight v. State

1 S.E.2d 223, 59 Ga. App. 450, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 60

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 14, 1939

Docket27294

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1 S.E.2d 223 (Knight 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

Knight v. State, 1 S.E.2d 223, 59 Ga. App. 450, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 60 (Ga. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. Newly discovered evidence that is merely cumulative or impeaching in its character is no cause for ai new trial. Goodson v. State, 50 Ga. App. 91 (3) (176 S. E. 916); Henry v. State, 50 Ga. App. 156 (3) (177 S. E. 256).

2. “An affidavit in support of the witness upon whose newly discovered evidence a new trial is sought must give the names of his associates, a statement that he keeps good company not being sufficient to meet this requirement, which is necessary to enable the prosecution to make a eounter-showing; and where such affidavit does not comply with this requirement, the trial judge does not abuse his discretion by refusing to grant a new trial on this ground.” Ivey v. State, 154 Ga. 63 (6) (113 S. E. 175).

3. Under the foregoing rulings and the facts of the instant case, the court did not err in overruling the grounds of the motion for new trial based on alleged newly discovered evidence.

4. The evidence, while conflicting, authorized the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. Newly discovered evidence that is merely cumulative or impeaching in its character is no cause for ai new trial. Goodson v. State, 50 Ga. App. 91 (3) (176 S. E. 916); Henry v. State, 50 Ga. App. 156 (3) (177 S. E. 256).

2. “An affidavit in support of the witness upon whose newly discovered evidence a new trial is sought must give the names of his associates, a statement that he keeps good company not being sufficient to meet this requirement, which is necessary to enable the prosecution to make a eounter-showing; and where such affidavit does not comply with this requirement, the trial judge does not abuse his discretion by refusing to grant a new trial on this ground.” Ivey v. State, 154 Ga. 63 (6) (113 S. E. 175).

3. Under the foregoing rulings and the facts of the instant case, the court did not err in overruling the grounds of the motion for new trial based on alleged newly discovered evidence.

4. The evidence, while conflicting, authorized the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 S.E.2d 223, 59 Ga. App. 450, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knight-v-state-gactapp-1939.

Opinion

4. The evidence, while conflicting, authorized the verdict.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack