Court Opinion

ID: 6697708
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 21:58:32.04469+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:01:18.177249
License: Public Domain

Stacy, C. J.
We have held in a number of cases that no appeal lies to this Court from a discretionary determination of an application for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. S. v. Edwards, 205 N. C., 661; S. v. Riddle and Huffman, 205 N. C., 591; S. v. Lea, 203 N. C., 316, 166 S. E., 292; S. v. Skipman, 203 N. C., 325, 166 S. E., 298; S. v. Davis, 203 N. C., 327, 166 S. E., 297; S. v. Rhodes, *739203 N. C., 329, 166 S. E., 299; S. v. Moore, 202 N. C., 841, 163 S. E., 700; S. v. Griffin, 202 N. C., 517, 163 S.E., 457; S. v. Cox, 202 N. C., 378, 162 S. E., 907; S. v. Lambert, 93 N. C., 618; Crane v. Carswell, 204 N. C., 571, 169 S. E., 160; Carson v. Dellinger, 90 N. C., 226; Holmes v. Godwin, 69 N. C., 467; Vest v. Cooper, 68 N. C., 131. Especially is this so in criminal cases where such applications are not originally entertained in the appellate court. S. v. Casey, 201 N. C., 620, 161 S. E., 81.
It also seems that the order allowing the movant, or petitioner, to appeal in forma pauperis was improvidently granted. Powell v. Moore, 204 N. C., 654, 169 S. E., 281.
Appeal dismissed.