Wilson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Wilson v. State

148 S.E. 287, 39 Ga. App. 672, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 501

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 14, 1929

Docket19625

StatusPublished

This text of 148 S.E. 287 (Wilson 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

Wilson v. State, 148 S.E. 287, 39 Ga. App. 672, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 501 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The special ground of the motion for a new trial in this case is based upon alleged newly discovered evidence. The supporting affidavit of the defendant and his counsel as to diligence merely states that they “did not know of the evidence set out in the amended ground of the motion for a new trial . . before the trial of the case herein stated, and that the same could not have been discovered by the exercise of ordinary diligence.” This was a mere conclusion of the affiants, without basic facts from which the court could judge whether or not they could have discovered the evidence by the exercise of ordinary diligence, and this ground of the motion for a new trial is defective. Hart v. State, 36 Ga. App. 673 (2) (137 S. E. 798); Taylor v. State, 132 Ga. 235 (3) (63 S. E. 1116); Tyre v. State, 35 Ga. App. 579 (134 S. E. 178). Besides, in view of the fact that the evidence is impeaching and cumulative in its nature, and of the counter-showing made by the State, the judgment overruling’the motion for a new trial would not be reversed on this assignment in any event.

The evidence amply sustains the verdict, and for no reason assigned did the court err in overruling the motion.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

The special ground of the motion for a new trial in this case is based upon alleged newly discovered evidence. The supporting affidavit of the defendant and his counsel as to diligence merely states that they “did not know of the evidence set out in the amended ground of the motion for a new trial . . before the trial of the case herein stated, and that the same could not have been discovered by the exercise of ordinary diligence.” This was a mere conclusion of the affiants, without basic facts from which the court could judge whether or not they could have discovered the evidence by the exercise of ordinary diligence, and this ground of the motion for a new trial is defective. Hart v. State, 36 Ga. App. 673 (2) (137 S. E. 798); Taylor v. State, 132 Ga. 235 (3) (63 S. E. 1116); Tyre v. State, 35 Ga. App. 579 (134 S. E. 178). Besides, in view of the fact that the evidence is impeaching and cumulative in its nature, and of the counter-showing made by the State, the judgment overruling’the motion for a new trial would not be reversed on this assignment in any event.

The evidence amply sustains the verdict, and for no reason assigned did the court err in overruling the motion.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 S.E. 287, 39 Ga. App. 672, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-state-gactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack