North v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

North v. State

29 S.E.2d 923, 71 Ga. App. 48, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 271

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 22, 1944

Docket30485.

StatusPublished

This text of 29 S.E.2d 923 (North 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

North v. State, 29 S.E.2d 923, 71 Ga. App. 48, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 271 (Ga. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Gardner, J.

Marvin North was convicted in Carroll superior court of voluntary manslaughter. His motion for new trial, based on newly discovered evidence, was overruled, and the case was brought to this court for review. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed. North v. State, 69 Ga. App. 836 (26 S. E. 2d, 892). He then filed an extraordinary motion for new trial on the ground of further newly discovered evidence, consisting of affidavits by C. H. Holloway and John Pleas, and made the original brief of evidence and the newly discovered evidence in the first motion for new trial a part of the extraordinary motion. The substance of the new affidavits is that a knife belonging to the deceased was found at the scene of the crime. The State’s counter-affidavits showed that Holloway and Pleas were not at the scene of the crime, and could not have testified truthfully as to the subject-matter of their affidavits.

The trial judge resolved the issue of fact against the defendant. This court has many times held that it is within the province of the' trial judge to determine the truth on such issues, and that his decision is binding unless there is a manifest abuse of discretion. In Thompson v. State, 51 Ga. App. 5 (2) (179 S. E. 200), it was *49 held: “It is well settled that the granting of a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence is not favored by the courts (McDuffie v. State, 2 Ga. App. 401, 58 S. E. 544); and where such evidence presented is in the main cumulative and impeaching (Walker v. State, 126 Ga. 588, 55 S. E. 483; Lawhorn v. State, 155 Ga. 373, 116 S. E. 822; Drane v. State, 130 Ga. 349, 60 S. E. 863; Brantley v. State, 16 Ga. App. 6, 84 S. E. 131), and such evidence does not render clear and positive that which was before equivocal and uncertain (Dougherty v. State, 7 Ga. App. 91, 66 S. E. 276), and would not probably cause the rendition of a different verdict on a new trial (Paden v. State, 17 Ga. App. 112, 86 S. E. 287), this court will not interfere with the judgment of the trial judge refusing a new trial. Especially is this true where the affidavits for a new trial are met by a counter-showing by the State. Wright v. State, 18 Ga. App. 705 (90 S. E. 285).” See, in this connection, Brand v. Lawrenceville, 64 Ga. App. 357, 359 (13 S. E. 2d, 214), and cases there cited. We do not deem it necessary to cite the many other cases to the same effect.

The court did not err in overruling the extraordinary motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Gardner, J.

Marvin North was convicted in Carroll superior court of voluntary manslaughter. His motion for new trial, based on newly discovered evidence, was overruled, and the case was brought to this court for review. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed. North v. State, 69 Ga. App. 836 (26 S. E. 2d, 892). He then filed an extraordinary motion for new trial on the ground of further newly discovered evidence, consisting of affidavits by C. H. Holloway and John Pleas, and made the original brief of evidence and the newly discovered evidence in the first motion for new trial a part of the extraordinary motion. The substance of the new affidavits is that a knife belonging to the deceased was found at the scene of the crime. The State’s counter-affidavits showed that Holloway and Pleas were not at the scene of the crime, and could not have testified truthfully as to the subject-matter of their affidavits.

The trial judge resolved the issue of fact against the defendant. This court has many times held that it is within the province of the' trial judge to determine the truth on such issues, and that his decision is binding unless there is a manifest abuse of discretion. In Thompson v. State, 51 Ga. App. 5 (2) (179 S. E. 200), it was *49 held: “It is well settled that the granting of a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence is not favored by the courts (McDuffie v. State, 2 Ga. App. 401, 58 S. E. 544); and where such evidence presented is in the main cumulative and impeaching (Walker v. State, 126 Ga. 588, 55 S. E. 483; Lawhorn v. State, 155 Ga. 373, 116 S. E. 822; Drane v. State, 130 Ga. 349, 60 S. E. 863; Brantley v. State, 16 Ga. App. 6, 84 S. E. 131), and such evidence does not render clear and positive that which was before equivocal and uncertain (Dougherty v. State, 7 Ga. App. 91, 66 S. E. 276), and would not probably cause the rendition of a different verdict on a new trial (Paden v. State, 17 Ga. App. 112, 86 S. E. 287), this court will not interfere with the judgment of the trial judge refusing a new trial. Especially is this true where the affidavits for a new trial are met by a counter-showing by the State. Wright v. State, 18 Ga. App. 705 (90 S. E. 285).” See, in this connection, Brand v. Lawrenceville, 64 Ga. App. 357, 359 (13 S. E. 2d, 214), and cases there cited. We do not deem it necessary to cite the many other cases to the same effect.

The court did not err in overruling the extraordinary motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 S.E.2d 923, 71 Ga. App. 48, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/north-v-state-gactapp-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack