McDuffie v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

McDuffie v. State

58 S.E. 544, 2 Ga. App. 401, 1907 Ga. App. LEXIS 396

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 25, 1907

Docket573

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 58 S.E. 544 (McDuffie 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

McDuffie v. State, 58 S.E. 544, 2 Ga. App. 401, 1907 Ga. App. LEXIS 396 (Ga. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. The granting of a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence is not favored by the courts, and it should clearly appear that the evidence newly discovered is of such a character as to probably change the result upon another trial.

2. Where the newly-discovered evidence -was that of a boy only seven years of age, whose father and others, in counter-affidavits filed to the motion, stated he was immature intellectually and physically, and did not understand the nature of an oath; and where it also appeared in the counter-showing that the said boy witness had stated on examination that he did not understand the nature and obligation of an oath; and where it was further made to appear by counter-affidavits that the alleged newly-discovered evidence of the boy witness was probably untrue, this court will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in refusing to grant a new trial on this ground.

3. Ho error of law is complained of, and the verdict was fully warranted by the evidence. Judgment affirmed.

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

Hill, C. J.

1. The granting of a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence is not favored by the courts, and it should clearly appear that the evidence newly discovered is of such a character as to probably change the result upon another trial.

2. Where the newly-discovered evidence -was that of a boy only seven years of age, whose father and others, in counter-affidavits filed to the motion, stated he was immature intellectually and physically, and did not understand the nature of an oath; and where it also appeared in the counter-showing that the said boy witness had stated on examination that he did not understand the nature and obligation of an oath; and where it was further made to appear by counter-affidavits that the alleged newly-discovered evidence of the boy witness was probably untrue, this court will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in refusing to grant a new trial on this ground.

3. Ho error of law is complained of, and the verdict was fully warranted by the evidence. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 S.E. 544, 2 Ga. App. 401, 1907 Ga. App. LEXIS 396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcduffie-v-state-gactapp-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack