Spell v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Spell v. State

4 S.E.2d 680, 60 Ga. App. 625, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 114

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 20, 1939

Docket27609

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 4 S.E.2d 680 (Spell 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

Spell v. State, 4 S.E.2d 680, 60 Ga. App. 625, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 114 (Ga. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

MacIntyre, J.

The defendant’s extraordinary motion for new trial, based upon alleged newly discovered evidence, was overruled. [626]*626No brief of the evidence accompanied said motion or became a part of the record. Without reference to the evidence this court is unable to say whether or not there is any merit in the extraordinary motion for new trial, or whether the alleged newly discovered evidence is merely cumulative or impeaching. Young v. State, 56 Ga. 403 (4). In seeking to set aside a verdict by a motion for new trial, "'“a brief of the evidence is an indispensable requisite to the validity of the motion. In other words, if there is no brief of evidence, the so-called motion for a new trial goes for naught, and the action of the trial judge either in overruling it or dismissing it, will be affirmed.” Dunn v. Goodrich Rubber Co., 32 Ga. App. 202 (122 S. E. 793). The judge did not err in overruling the extraordinary motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Guerry, J., concur.

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

MacIntyre, J.

The defendant’s extraordinary motion for new trial, based upon alleged newly discovered evidence, was overruled. [626]*626No brief of the evidence accompanied said motion or became a part of the record. Without reference to the evidence this court is unable to say whether or not there is any merit in the extraordinary motion for new trial, or whether the alleged newly discovered evidence is merely cumulative or impeaching. Young v. State, 56 Ga. 403 (4). In seeking to set aside a verdict by a motion for new trial, "'“a brief of the evidence is an indispensable requisite to the validity of the motion. In other words, if there is no brief of evidence, the so-called motion for a new trial goes for naught, and the action of the trial judge either in overruling it or dismissing it, will be affirmed.” Dunn v. Goodrich Rubber Co., 32 Ga. App. 202 (122 S. E. 793). The judge did not err in overruling the extraordinary motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Guerry, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 S.E.2d 680, 60 Ga. App. 625, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spell-v-state-gactapp-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack