Prosser v. State

4 S.E.2d 499, 60 Ga. App. 604, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 99
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 13, 1939
Docket27677
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 4 S.E.2d 499 (Prosser 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
Prosser v. State, 4 S.E.2d 499, 60 Ga. App. 604, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 99 (Ga. Ct. App. 1939).

Opinion

MacIntyre, J.

1. Grady Prosser was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. His motion for new trial, based solely on tlie general grounds, was overruled, and he excepted. After verdict, in passing on the motion for new trial, that view of the evidence which is most unfavorable ■ to the accused must be taken, for every presumption and every inference is in favor of the verdict. Vandeviere v. State, 58 Ga. App. 18 (197 S. E. 338).

[605]*605Decided September 13, 1939. Carlyle Giles, Frank W. Bell, F. W. Jordan, for plaintiff in error. G. 8. Baldwin Jr., solicitor-general, McGullar & McGullar, contra.

2. 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 refusing a new trial.

3. Notwithstanding the testimony of the witnesses for the State and the defendant was in sharp conflict, the evidence authorized the verdict.

4. The law allows the 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 when 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).

5. The judge having approved the verdict, we can not say that he abused his discretion in overruling the motion for new trial. Jackson v. State, 56 Ga. App. 392 (192 S. E. 630).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Guerry, J., concur.

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

Related

Giles v. State
96 S.E.2d 317 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1956)
James v. Rogers
58 S.E.2d 640 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)
Lockhart v. State
76 Ga. App. 289 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1947)
Collum v. State
16 S.E.2d 483 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 S.E.2d 499, 60 Ga. App. 604, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prosser-v-state-gactapp-1939.