Meeks v. State

<p>1. That one of the traverse jurors had not been a resident of the county for as much as six months before the trial, which fact was unknown to the prissoner and his counsel until after verdict, is not cause for new trial.</p> <p>2. Where there is direct evidence of a homicide by shooting, and direct evidence that the prisoner was present and admitted that he shot the deceased, the case is not one founded solely on circumstantial testimony.</p> <p>3. In charging on the grades of homicide, it is not error to omit the provisions of the Code prescribing the punishment for the various grades of manslaughter.</p> <p>4. Though, in a motion for new trial, it be alleged that a principle of law apparently applicable to the case was not charged, the supreme court will not grant a new trial, where there is no verification by the presiding judge, either that the charge was requested or that it was not given.</p> <p>5. Inasmuch _ as a new trial for newly discovered evidence should not be granted unless the new evidence would probably produce a different verdict, the judge, in the exercise of his discretion, may hear affidavits for and against the truth of the alleged new facts, and for and against the credibility of the witnesses by whom it is proposed to establish them, and thus go to the bottom of the showing, so as to discover, if possible, how much of true substance there is in the alleged new matter.</p> <p>6. There was no abuse of discretion in denying a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the new evidence being chiefly cumulative.</p>