Swann v. State

113 S.E. 38, 28 Ga. App. 771, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 851
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided July 12, 1922·No. 13601·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The evidence authorized the defendant’s conviction. The only special- ground of the motion for a new trial is based upon alleged newly discovered evidence, the material part of which was hearsay and inadmissible; and, moreover, this alleged evidence is not such as would likely cause a different result should a new trial be granted. The court therefore did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

•Judgment affirmed.

Broyles,. C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur. Luke, J., dissents. W. L. Nix, for plaintiff in error. W. O. Dean, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Swann v. State, 113 S.E. 38, 28 Ga. App. 771, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 851 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

113 S.E. 38 (Swann v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Richards v. State
262 S.E.2d 469 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1979)