Phillips v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Phillips v. State

192 S.E. 840, 56 Ga. App. 463, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 129

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 25, 1937

Docket26423

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 192 S.E. 840 (Phillips 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

Phillips v. State, 192 S.E. 840, 56 Ga. App. 463, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 129 (Ga. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Guerry, J.

“Upon the hearing of a motion for new trial, and in the consideration of a ground of the motion dependent upon newly discovered evidence, where affidavits are introduced supporting and disputing the ground of the motion, the trial judge is the trior of the facts, and it is his province to determine the credibility of the conflicting facts and the contradictory witnesses. A reviewing- court will not in such a; ca'se control his discretion as to the comparative credibility of the witnesses who testified in support of the motion and those who swore to the contrary.” Fouraker v. State, 4 Ga. App. 692 (62 S. E. 116); [464]*464Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Clark, 15 Ga. App. 16 (82 S. E. 600); Tyre v. State, 38 Ga. App. 206 (143 S. E. 778); Rowland v. State, 38 Ga. App. 664 (145 S. E. 100). Under the showing made by the defendant and the counter-showing made by the State, the above principle is controlling in this caso. The court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Decided September 25, 1937. J. P. Tomlinson, E. W. Nelson, for plaintiff in error. II. C. Morgan, solicitor-general, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Guerry, J.

“Upon the hearing of a motion for new trial, and in the consideration of a ground of the motion dependent upon newly discovered evidence, where affidavits are introduced supporting and disputing the ground of the motion, the trial judge is the trior of the facts, and it is his province to determine the credibility of the conflicting facts and the contradictory witnesses. A reviewing- court will not in such a; ca'se control his discretion as to the comparative credibility of the witnesses who testified in support of the motion and those who swore to the contrary.” Fouraker v. State, 4 Ga. App. 692 (62 S. E. 116); [464]*464Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Clark, 15 Ga. App. 16 (82 S. E. 600); Tyre v. State, 38 Ga. App. 206 (143 S. E. 778); Rowland v. State, 38 Ga. App. 664 (145 S. E. 100). Under the showing made by the defendant and the counter-showing made by the State, the above principle is controlling in this caso. The court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Decided September 25, 1937. J. P. Tomlinson, E. W. Nelson, for plaintiff in error. II. C. Morgan, solicitor-general, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 S.E. 840, 56 Ga. App. 463, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillips-v-state-gactapp-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack