Case ID: ga-app_1/html/0134-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Powell, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

175.
    MILLER v. THE STATE.
    There being no error of law complained of, and the evidence, while weak, being legally sufficient to authorize a conviction, this court has no • power to interfere with the discretion of the trial judge in refusing to grant a new trial.
    
      Indictment for arson, from Jackson superior court — Judge Brand. December 7, 1906.
    Argued January 28,
    Decided February 4, 1907.
    
      Shackelford & Shackelford, for plaintiff in error.
    
      S. J. Tribble, solicitor-general, contra.
   Powell, J.

Anderson Miller was convicted of arson. Tbe only assignment of error is upon the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. We have examined the record carefully; and the evidence of defendant’s guilt, though weak, is legally sufficient to authorize the conviction. The defendant has been convicted twice under substantially the same testimony, and this second verdict bears the approval of the trial judge. However much we may doubt the defendant’s- guilt, we have no jurisdiction, under these circumstances, to grant a new trial. Judgment affirmed.