Court Opinion

ID: 9589782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:48:39.468888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:58.688822
License: Public Domain

Per curiam.
The appellant was convicted for having committed armed robbery, and he has appealed. After his conviction he filed a motion for a new trial. Before that motion was heard, he filed an amendment to it based on evidence discovered after his conviction that he alleged was consonant with his innocence and would have affected the outcome of his trial. A hearing was conducted on the amended motion for new trial; the alleged "newly discovered evidence” was presented and made a part of the record; and the trial judge overruled the amended motion.
The appellant contends that the newly discovered *455evidence asserted in his amended motion for new trial and presented to the trial court at the hearing warranted a granting of a new trial under the standards set out in Bell v. State, 227 Ga. 800 (183 SE2d 357) (1971).
Argued September 22, 1976 —
Decided February 23, 1977
Rehearing denied March 8, 1977.
Daniel F. Byrne, for appellant.
William H. Ison, District Attorney, J. W. Bradley, Assistant District Attorney, Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, G. Stephen Parker, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
We do not agree with this contention of the appellant. All six requirements set out in Bell, which must be complied with prior to the court granting a new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence, have not been met by appellant in this case. Therefore, the overruling of the amended motion for new trial was not erroneous.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Nichols, C. J., Ingram and Hill, JJ., who dissent.