Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

111 Ga. 653

Carmichael v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided August 7, 1900

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1900-08-07

<p>1. The Supreme Court will not pass upon assignments of error requiring a consideration of evidence, when what purports to be a brief thereof is in no sense a brief, but a full report of the examination of witnesses, embracing to a substantial extent palpably needless and irrelevant matter.</p> <p>2. Newly discovered evidence the only effect of which, if believed, would be to show that a witness sworn at the trial afterwards made statements conflicting with his testimony, affords no cause for reversing a judgment denying a new trial.</p>

Relies on Price v. High & Co. · Southern Mining Co. v. Brown

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1900-08-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 1947

6 state decisions

4019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Lumpkin, P. J.

¶1The plaintiff in error was in the superior court of Carroll county convicted of burglary, and excepted to a judgment overruling a motion for a new trial. The motion contains the general grounds, and also a ground based on newly discovered evidence.

¶21. The document purporting to be a brief of the evidence consists of a full stenographic report of the examination of the witnesses introduced at the trial. It is in dialogue form, and sets forth much irrelevant matter. Even a casual inspection of it shows that there was no attempt whatever to condense or brief the testimony as the law requires. This- court will not, therefore, undertake to pass upon the assignments contained in the motion that the verdict is contrary to evidence and is decidedly and strongly against the weight of the evidence. Southern Mining Co. v. Brown, 107 Ga. 264; Price v. High & Co., 108 Ga. 145, and cases cited.

¶3*6542. The newly discovered evidence merely tended to show that a witness sworn at the trial in behalf of the State after-wards made statements conflicting with his sworn testimony. Consequently, the ground of the motion relating to this matter is, under repeated rulings of this court, without merit here.

¶4 Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.
/111/ga/653 · .json · Public domain