Case Name: MILLER v. STATE
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1925-03-27
Citations: 3 Ohio Law Abs. 292
Docket Number: No. 1298
Parties: MILLER v. STATE
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 3
Pages: 292–292

Head Matter:
No. 439
MILLER v. STATE
Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist., Franklin Co
No. 1298.
Decided March 27, 1925
465. ERROR—Conviction for crime will not be reversed unless verdict is manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence, and reviewing court will always hesitate to do so when doubts of its propriety arise out of a conflict in oral testimony.
Attorneys—Daisy Perkins and Adolph Gold- | fredrick for Miller; John R. King, Pros. Atty., and Paul C. Hicks, Asst. Pros. Atty., for State; all of Columbus.

Opinion:
ALLREAD, J.
Scott Miller was indicted upon a charge of murder in the second degree; and in the Franklin common pleas was convicted of same. Miller was alleged to have shot and killed one, James Lindly, and he admitted it but claimed it was justifiable under the plea of self-defense. Miller prosecuted error claiming that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence, and alleged the conduct of the prosecuting attorney in the examination of witnesses was improper. He also claimed that the lower court erred in refusing to .grant a motion íor a new trial. The court of appeals held:
1. A judgment will not be reversed because the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence, unless it is manifestly so, and the reviewing court will always hesitate to do so where doubts of its propriety arise out of a conflict of oral testimony. Breese v. State. 12 OS. 146.
2. The action of a trial court in refusing to grant a motion for a new trial on the ground oí newly discovered evidence will not be disturbed unless there is an abuse of discretion. The overruling of the motion was not such an abuse as would warrant the reversal of the trial court's judgment. Judgment affirmed.