History
  • No items yet
midpage
Rushing v. State
167 Ga. 280
Ga.
1928
Check Treatment
Gilbert, J.

1. The verdict was supported by evidence.

2. The sole special ground of the motion for new trial is based upon newly discovered evidence which tended to show that at the time of the liomi.cide the accused was of unsound mind. The facts alleged were contradicted in counter-affidavits filed by the State. On conflicting evidence this court can not hold that the trial judge erred in refusing a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Moreover, the grant of a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence .is not favored by the courts. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. W. G. QuaLllebaum and Love & Fort, for plaintiff in error. George M. Napier, attorney-general, W. B. Flournoy, solicitor-general, and T. B. Gress, assistant attorney-general, contra.

Case Details

Case Name: Rushing v. State
Court Name: Supreme Court of Georgia
Date Published: Nov 14, 1928
Citation: 167 Ga. 280
Docket Number: No. 6698
Court Abbreviation: Ga.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.