Martin v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Martin v. State

98 S.E.2d 105, 95 Ga. App. 519, 1957 Ga. App. LEXIS 845

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 11, 1957

Docket36667

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 98 S.E.2d 105 (Martin 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

Martin v. State, 98 S.E.2d 105, 95 Ga. App. 519, 1957 Ga. App. LEXIS 845 (Ga. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

*519 Townsend, J.

This court has no discretion in the grant of a new trial, nor can it reverse the trial court merely because it may feel that the punishment inflicted, which is within legal limits, is inordinately severe. Where there is a conflict in the testimony of witnesses, their credibility is for the jury, and not this court, to decide. Accordingly the verdict of guilty, based on the testimony of two witnesses, is authorized by the evidence and cannot be set aside here. Aycock v. State, 62 Ga. App. 812 (10 S. E. 2d 84); Britt v. Davis, 53 Ga. App. 783 (187 S. E. 125). That general ground of motions for new trials, embodied in Code § 70-206, that “the verdict may be decidedly and strongly against the weight of evidence,” is discretionary with and is addressed alone to the trial judge, not the appellate court. Josey v. State, 197 Ga. 82, 93 (28 S. E. 2d 290).

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P. J., and Carlisle, J., concur.

*520 Cecil Martin testified, and the defendant stated, that they had not driven the truck over U. S. Highway 19 at the point testified to by the witnesses for the State, but that they had been in another locality and Cecil Martin had been driving.

The trial court denied a motion for new trial by the defendant filed on the general grounds only.

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

*519 Townsend, J.

This court has no discretion in the grant of a new trial, nor can it reverse the trial court merely because it may feel that the punishment inflicted, which is within legal limits, is inordinately severe. Where there is a conflict in the testimony of witnesses, their credibility is for the jury, and not this court, to decide. Accordingly the verdict of guilty, based on the testimony of two witnesses, is authorized by the evidence and cannot be set aside here. Aycock v. State, 62 Ga. App. 812 (10 S. E. 2d 84); Britt v. Davis, 53 Ga. App. 783 (187 S. E. 125). That general ground of motions for new trials, embodied in Code § 70-206, that “the verdict may be decidedly and strongly against the weight of evidence,” is discretionary with and is addressed alone to the trial judge, not the appellate court. Josey v. State, 197 Ga. 82, 93 (28 S. E. 2d 290).

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P. J., and Carlisle, J., concur.

*520 Cecil Martin testified, and the defendant stated, that they had not driven the truck over U. S. Highway 19 at the point testified to by the witnesses for the State, but that they had been in another locality and Cecil Martin had been driving.

The trial court denied a motion for new trial by the defendant filed on the general grounds only.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 S.E.2d 105, 95 Ga. App. 519, 1957 Ga. App. LEXIS 845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-state-gactapp-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack