Mosley v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mosley v. State

88 S.E. 415, 17 Ga. App. 740, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 894

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 24, 1916

Docket6908

StatusPublished

This text of 88 S.E. 415 (Mosley 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

Mosley v. State, 88 S.E. 415, 17 Ga. App. 740, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 894 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

When evidence of a new and independent fact, indicating the innocence of one convicted of crime, which could not have been obtained at the trial by the exercise of ordinary diligence and which probably would produce a different result, is introduced in support of a ground of a motion for new trial based thereon, a new trial should be granted, even though the newly discovered testimony he in a sense impeaching and cumulative. Saylors v. State, 9 Ga. App. 227 (70 S. E. 975). However, in the case sub judice, where the testimony alleged to have been discovered after the trial consisted of nothing more than an effort to show the improbability of the State’s witnesses having had an opportunity to purchase the intoxicating liquor in question without the knowledge of the affiants, and to thus impeach the previous testimony of the witnesses for the State, it was not error to refuse a new trial, especially in view of the fact that the alleged newly discovered testimony was merely cumulative of similar impeaching testimony which had been offered at the trial. Judgment affirmed.

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

Russell, C. J.

When evidence of a new and independent fact, indicating the innocence of one convicted of crime, which could not have been obtained at the trial by the exercise of ordinary diligence and which probably would produce a different result, is introduced in support of a ground of a motion for new trial based thereon, a new trial should be granted, even though the newly discovered testimony he in a sense impeaching and cumulative. Saylors v. State, 9 Ga. App. 227 (70 S. E. 975). However, in the case sub judice, where the testimony alleged to have been discovered after the trial consisted of nothing more than an effort to show the improbability of the State’s witnesses having had an opportunity to purchase the intoxicating liquor in question without the knowledge of the affiants, and to thus impeach the previous testimony of the witnesses for the State, it was not error to refuse a new trial, especially in view of the fact that the alleged newly discovered testimony was merely cumulative of similar impeaching testimony which had been offered at the trial. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.E. 415, 17 Ga. App. 740, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mosley-v-state-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack