Case ID: ga-app_28/html/0469-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Luke, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

13304.
    Miller v. The State.
    Decided April 11, 1922.
    Conviction of assault with intent to murder; from Thomas superior court — Judge Thomas. January 2, 1922.
    Paragraph 3 of the decision relates to the following ground of the motion for a new trial: “ Because the court, over objection of the defendant, allowed in evidence the first bond forfeiture in due and legal form, showing that the defendant had forfeited his bond; to which ruling the defendant then and there excepted, and now excepts and assigns the same as error, the admission of said documentary evidence being contrary to law over objection that the same was irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in the -case, and has no tendency to illustrate any issue.”
   Luke, J.

1. The alleged newly discovered evidence is cumulative and impeaching, and would not likely produce a different result upon another trial.

2. The ground of the motion for a new trial which complains that it was not shown that the shot-gun with which the prosecutor was shot was a weapon likely to produce death is without merit.

3. The ground of the motion for a new trial which complains of the court’s ruling upon the admissibility of evidence falls within the rule announced in Wynne v. State, 123 Ga. 566 (1) (51 S. E. 636).

4. Upon conflicting evidence the jury were authorized to return a verdict of guilty. It was not error for any reason assigned to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., oonour.

Titus & Dekle, for plaintiff in error.

C. E. Hay, solicitor-general, contra.