Case ID: ga_138/html/0412-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam. Atkinson, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

McNaughton v. The State.
    July 11, 1912.
    Indictment for murder. Before Judge Eawlings. Emanuel superior court. April 17, 1912.
    This case was before the Supreme Court on a former occasion. McNaughton v. State, 136 Ga. 600 (71 S. E. 1038). After the judgment of the Supreme Court, affirming the judgment of the superior court in refusing to grant a new trial, was made the judgment of the latter court, the plaintiff in error, at the April term, 1912, made an extraordinary motion for new trial, under the provisions of the Civil Code, § 6092, on the ground of certain evidence alleged to have been discovered after the trial, and after the original motion for new trial had been overruled, and immediately preceding the term of.court to which the motion for new trial on extraordinary grounds was filed. After considering this evidence, and other evidence offered in rebuttal by the State, the court overruled the motion and refused to grant a new trial. The movant excepted.
   Per Curiam.

This was an extraordinary motion for new trial upon the ground of alleged newly discovered evidence. In view of the rebutting evidence submitted by the State on the hearing of the motion, and the improbability, considering the evidence upon the trial, that the alleged newly discovered evidence would produce a different result on another trial, the judgment refusing a new trial must be affirmed. See Malone v. State, 49 Ga. 221, and other cases collated in 14 Michie’s Dig. 398.

Atkinson, J.

While I am of the opinion that the evidence on the trial was not sufficient to authorize the verdict, I concur in the opinion that the alleged newly discovered evidence would not probably produce a different result. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

A. L. Franklin, F. H. Saffold, W. W. Larsen, and Wilson, Bennett & Lamb din, for plaintiff in error.

Thomas S. Felder/ attorney-general, Alfred Herrington, solicitor-general, Hines & Jordan, and Reuben R. Arnold, contra.