Case ID: la_149/html/0003-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MONROE, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(88 South. 532.)
    No. 24568.
    STATE v. DELONEY.
    (May 2, 1921.)
    
      (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
    Criminal law <&wkey;l 156(3) — Discretion as to new trial for newly discovered evidence not interfered with unless good reason shown.
    Unless good reason be shown, this court will not interfere with the exercise by a trial judge of the discretion vested in him in the matter of granting or refusing a new trial in a criminal case upon the ground of newly discovered evidence.
    Appeal from Second Judicial District Court, Parish of Webster; Robert Roberts, Jr., Judge.
    Arthur Deloney, alias Arthur Malone, was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Drew & Drew, of Minden, for appellant.
    A. V. Coco, Atty. Gen., and R. H. Lee, Dist. Atty., of Minden (T. S. 'Walmsley, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.
   MONROE, C. J.

Defendant, charged with murder, was convicted of manslaughter, and has appealed. Neither he nor the prosecution has appeared in this court. The transcript discloses proceedings in which the law appears to have been complied with in every particular. The only bill of exception that we find was reserved to the overruling of a motion for new trial, based upon an allegation of newly discovered evidence. The judge appears to have been of the opinion that the-witness named in the motion did not possess the information therein attributed to him, and that, in any event, his testimony would be merely cumulative. The case is one in which we find no sufficient reason to doubt that, in refusing the new trial, he has properly exercised the- discretion which the law-vests in him in such matters. -The conviction and sentence appealed from are therefore

Affirmed.