Walker v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Walker v. State

169 S.E. 43, 46 Ga. App. 731, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 221

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 14, 1933

Docket22913

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 169 S.E. 43 (Walker 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

Walker v. State, 169 S.E. 43, 46 Ga. App. 731, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 221 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The accused, after being convicted of robbery, filed an extraordinary motion for a new trial, which was overruled by the trial judge. The motion was based upon the alleged newly discovered evidence of Mattie Wilson. In the only affidavit submitted to support this Avitness the names of her associates are not given, but it is merely stated therein, in this connection, “that the associates of Mattie Wilson are country people and farmers, and they are honest and truthful.” As stated in Ivey v. State, 154 Ga. 63 (6), 67 (113 S. E. 175) : “It is a matter of importance to the State to have the names of such associates of the witness, in order to ascertain from them whether the newly discovered witness is worthy of credit and belief.” The showing for a new trial in the instant case, therefore, was defective, and the judge was within his discretion in denying the motion. Ivey v. State, supra; Bowen v. State, 44 Ga. App. 565, 566 (162 S. E. 151), and cit. Furthermore, as stated by the trial judge in his order overruling the motion: “Reference to the evidence in the case discloses the fact that the defendant did not exercise the slightest diligence to procure the presence of this alleged Avitness [before his trial]. The [alleged newly-discovered] evidence itself throws little or no light on the alleged robberjq and it is quite apparent that the defendant had [or should have had] full knowledge of the presence of the witness [732]*732[Mattie Wilson] at the time of the alleged robbery, and by the exercise of the slightest diligence could have procured her evidence [at his trial].”

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The accused, after being convicted of robbery, filed an extraordinary motion for a new trial, which was overruled by the trial judge. The motion was based upon the alleged newly discovered evidence of Mattie Wilson. In the only affidavit submitted to support this Avitness the names of her associates are not given, but it is merely stated therein, in this connection, “that the associates of Mattie Wilson are country people and farmers, and they are honest and truthful.” As stated in Ivey v. State, 154 Ga. 63 (6), 67 (113 S. E. 175) : “It is a matter of importance to the State to have the names of such associates of the witness, in order to ascertain from them whether the newly discovered witness is worthy of credit and belief.” The showing for a new trial in the instant case, therefore, was defective, and the judge was within his discretion in denying the motion. Ivey v. State, supra; Bowen v. State, 44 Ga. App. 565, 566 (162 S. E. 151), and cit. Furthermore, as stated by the trial judge in his order overruling the motion: “Reference to the evidence in the case discloses the fact that the defendant did not exercise the slightest diligence to procure the presence of this alleged Avitness [before his trial]. The [alleged newly-discovered] evidence itself throws little or no light on the alleged robberjq and it is quite apparent that the defendant had [or should have had] full knowledge of the presence of the witness [732]*732[Mattie Wilson] at the time of the alleged robbery, and by the exercise of the slightest diligence could have procured her evidence [at his trial].”

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 S.E. 43, 46 Ga. App. 731, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-state-gactapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack