Home/Supreme Court of Georgia/Offutt v. State

Offutt v. State

233 S.E.2d 191, 238 Ga. 454, 1977 Ga. LEXIS 1063
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 23, 1977
Docket31537
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 233 S.E.2d 191 (Offutt v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Offutt v. State, 233 S.E.2d 191, 238 Ga. 454, 1977 Ga. LEXIS 1063 (Ga. 1977).

Opinions

Per curiam.

The appellant was convicted for having committed armed robbery, and he has appealed. After his conviction he filed a motion for a new trial. Before that motion was heard, he filed an amendment to it based on evidence discovered after his conviction that he alleged was consonant with his innocence and would have affected the outcome of his trial. A hearing was conducted on the amended motion for new trial; the alleged "newly discovered evidence” was presented and made a part of the record; and the trial judge overruled the amended motion.

The appellant contends that the newly discovered [455]*455evidence asserted in his amended motion for new trial and presented to the trial court at the hearing warranted a granting of a new trial under the standards set out in Bell v. State, 227 Ga. 800 (183 SE2d 357) (1971).

Argued September 22, 1976 — Decided February 23, 1977 Rehearing denied March 8, 1977. Daniel F. Byrne, for appellant. William H. Ison, District Attorney, J. W. Bradley, Assistant District Attorney, Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, G. Stephen Parker, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

We do not agree with this contention of the appellant. All six requirements set out in Bell, which must be complied with prior to the court granting a new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence, have not been met by appellant in this case. Therefore, the overruling of the amended motion for new trial was not erroneous.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Nichols, C. J., Ingram and Hill, JJ., who dissent.

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

Related

Walker v. State
474 S.E.2d 695 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1996)
Greenway v. State
428 S.E.2d 415 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1993)
Westbrook v. State
368 S.E.2d 131 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1988)
Pittman v. State
357 S.E.2d 855 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1987)
Roberts v. State
327 S.E.2d 819 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1985)
Humphrey v. State
314 S.E.2d 436 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1984)
Tims v. State
309 S.E.2d 405 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1983)
Millwood v. State
296 S.E.2d 239 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)
Drake v. State
287 S.E.2d 180 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1982)
Garnto v. State
273 S.E.2d 608 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1981)
Timberlake v. State
271 S.E.2d 792 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1980)
Stripling v. State
271 S.E.2d 888 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1980)
Williams v. Williams
243 S.E.2d 69 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1978)
Offutt v. State
233 S.E.2d 191 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
233 S.E.2d 191, 238 Ga. 454, 1977 Ga. LEXIS 1063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/offutt-v-state-ga-1977.