Oglesbee v. StateOglesbee v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Bloodworth
(After stating the foregoing facts.) Motions for nеw trials on extraordinary grounds are not favored by the courts, ‘and “ a stricter rule is applied to an extraordinary motiоn *754for new trial based on the ground of newly discovered evidence than to an ordinary motion on that ground.” Norman v. Goode, 121 Ga. 449, 455 (49 S.E. 268). Even in an ordinary motion for a new trial based upon newly disсovered evidence it has been uniformly held that “though the witness sought to be impeаched by newly discovered evidence was the only witness against the prisoner uрon a vital point in the case, if the sole effect of the evidence would be to impeach the witness a new triаl would not be granted.” Key v. State, 21 Ga. App. 795 (101 S.E. 917), and cases cited.
The only effect оf the alleged newly discovered evidеnce in this, case would be to impeach the two witnesses who were sworn for the State at the trial. In addition to this, the alleged newly discovered evidence is of such a character that even if unattacked, it would hardly be -received as credible by the average juror. Before a new trial should be granted upon аlleged newly discovered evidence it should be such as, if believed, would probаbly produce a different verdict upоn another trial, such evidence as wоuld be “decisive of the controversy.” It can hardly be insisted that the evidence of Geiger and Coley is of this charactеr. Moreover, it is now the fixed law of this State that “ the extraordinary motions or cаses contemplated by the statute are such as do not ordinarily occur in the transaction of human affairs; as, when а man has been convicted of murder аnd it afterwards appears that the suрposed deceased is still alive, оr where one is convicted on the tеstimony of a witness who is subsequently found guilty of perjury in giving that testimony, or where there has beеn some providential cause, and cases of like character.” Rogers v. State, 18 Ga. App. 702 (90 S.E. 356), and сases cited. The motion under consideration does not come within this rule. The еxtraordinary motion for a new trial was properly overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
Broyles, C.J., and Luke, J., concur.