Rushing v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Rushing v. State

145 S.E. 453, 167 Ga. 280, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 139

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 14, 1928

DocketNo. 6698

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 145 S.E. 453 (Rushing 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

Rushing v. State, 145 S.E. 453, 167 Ga. 280, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 139 (Ga. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

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.

All the Justices concur. W. G. QuaLllebaum and Love & Fort, for plaintiff in error. George M. Napier, attorney-general, W. B. Flournoy, solicitor-general, and T. B. Gress, assistant attorney-general, contra.

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

Gilbert, J.

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.

All the Justices concur. W. G. QuaLllebaum and Love & Fort, for plaintiff in error. George M. Napier, attorney-general, W. B. Flournoy, solicitor-general, and T. B. Gress, assistant attorney-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 S.E. 453, 167 Ga. 280, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rushing-v-state-ga-1928.

Opinion

1. The verdict was supported by evidence.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack