Moody v. State

70 Ga. App. 829
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 7, 1944
Docket30232
StatusPublished

This text of 70 Ga. App. 829 (Moody 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
Moody v. State, 70 Ga. App. 829 (Ga. Ct. App. 1944).

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 Ga. 230 (125 S. E. 208); Hudgins v. State, 2 Ga. 173 (5). “The law allows him [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 say in the light of all the evidence that he abused his discretion in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Gardner, J., concur. Eldon L. Bowen, for plaintiff in error. Dave M. Parker, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Related

Hudgins v. State
2 Ga. 173 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1847)
Smith v. State
17 S.E. 68 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1893)
Puckett v. State
125 S.E. 208 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
70 Ga. App. 829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moody-v-state-gactapp-1944.