Shirley v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Shirley v. State

111 S.E. 740, 28 Ga. App. 462, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 601

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 14, 1922

Docket13264

StatusPublished

This text of 111 S.E. 740 (Shirley 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

Shirley v. State, 111 S.E. 740, 28 Ga. App. 462, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 601 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. There is.no merit in that ground of the motion for a new trial which alleges error in the charge of the court in reference to the “ maximum ” and “ minimum ” term the jury could prescribe by their verdict.

2. A new trial should not be granted on the ground of alleged newly discovered evidence, because: (a) The alleged newly discovered evidence is that of two men who were walking in the road with accused when, as claimed by him, he was stopped by the prosecutor and the quarrel occurred, and the witnesses themselves swear that they heard the quarrel and saw the fight. This evidence could have been discovered before the trial by the exercise of ordinary diligence. (&) The only effect of the evidence would be-to impeach the witnesses for the State, and it is settled law in this State that even “though the witness sought to be impeached by newly discovered evidence was the only witness against the prisoner upon a vital point in the case, if the sole effect of the evidence would be to impeach the witness a new trial will not be granted.” Key v. State, 21 Ga. App. 795 (95 S. E. 269).

3. There is ample evidence to support the verdict; the trial judge has approved it, and, no error of law having been shown, this court has no power to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. There is.no merit in that ground of the motion for a new trial which alleges error in the charge of the court in reference to the “ maximum ” and “ minimum ” term the jury could prescribe by their verdict.

2. A new trial should not be granted on the ground of alleged newly discovered evidence, because: (a) The alleged newly discovered evidence is that of two men who were walking in the road with accused when, as claimed by him, he was stopped by the prosecutor and the quarrel occurred, and the witnesses themselves swear that they heard the quarrel and saw the fight. This evidence could have been discovered before the trial by the exercise of ordinary diligence. (&) The only effect of the evidence would be-to impeach the witnesses for the State, and it is settled law in this State that even “though the witness sought to be impeached by newly discovered evidence was the only witness against the prisoner upon a vital point in the case, if the sole effect of the evidence would be to impeach the witness a new trial will not be granted.” Key v. State, 21 Ga. App. 795 (95 S. E. 269).

3. There is ample evidence to support the verdict; the trial judge has approved it, and, no error of law having been shown, this court has no power to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.E. 740, 28 Ga. App. 462, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shirley-v-state-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack