Rushing v. State
145 S.E. 453, 167 Ga. 280, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 139
Opinion
1. The verdict was supported by evidence.
2. The sole special ground of the motion for new trial is based upon newly discovered evidence which tended to show that at the time of the liomi.cide the accused was of unsound mind. The facts alleged were contradicted in counter-affidavits filed by the State. On conflicting evidence this court can not hold that the trial judge erred in refusing a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Moreover, the grant of a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence .is not favored by the courts. Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Rushing v. State, 145 S.E. 453, 167 Ga. 280, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 139 (Ga. 1928).
145 S.E. 453 (Rushing v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Southwell v. State
4 S.E.2d 26 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
McDuffie v. State
187 S.E. 672 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Staton v. State
163 S.E. 901 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1932)