lawskills
Loading
Did you know you can download our entire database for free?


Resources
[more] 

Georgia Caselaw:
Browse
Greatest Hits

Georgia Code: Browse

(external) Findlaw Georgia Law Resources


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Lawskills.com Georgia Caselaw
MARTIN v. THE STATE.
36667.
Speeding. Before Judge Brooke. Forsyth Superior Court. January 24, 1957.
TOWNSEND, J.
This court has no discretion in the grant of a new trial, nor can it reverse the trial court merely because it may feel that the punishment inflicted, which is within legal limits, is inordinately severe. Where there is a conflict in the testimony of witnesses, their credibility is for the jury, and not this court, to decide. Accordingly the verdict of guilty, based on the testimony of two witnesses, is authorized by the evidence and cannot be set aside here. Aycock v. State, 62 Ga. App. 812 (10 S. E. 2d 84); Britt v. Davis, 53 Ga. App. 783 (187 S. E. 125). That general ground of motions for new trials, embodied in Code 70-206, that "the verdict may be decidedly and strongly against the weight of evidence," is discretionary with and is addressed alone to the trial judge, not the appellate court. Josey v. State, 197 Ga. 82, 93 (28 S. E. 2d 290).
The plaintiff in error was convicted of speeding on the testimony of two police officers who stated in substance that they were stationed in an automobile between a store and filling station back off Highway 19 in Silver City; that the defendant drove a pick-up truck along the highway at a speed in excess of 75 miles an hour; that he proceeded up the road and across the county line to a beer place and returned along the same road at about the same speed; that it was night but they recognized him by shining their lights on the truck; that they pursued the truck which was driven in excess of 110 miles an hour and it eluded them; that they then parked at the Coal Mountain store and the truck later drove in there, but when it drove in the defendant, Ford Martin, was a passenger and Cecil Martin was driving it.
Cecil Martin testified, and the defendant stated, that they had not driven the truck over U. S. Highway 19 at the point testified to by the witnesses for the State, but that they had been in another locality and Cecil Martin had been driving.
The trial court denied a motion for new trial by the defendant filed on the general grounds only.
Sam P. Burtz, Solicitor-General, contra.
D. Carl Tallant, for plaintiff in error.
DECIDED APRIL 11, 1957.
Saturday May 23 02:11 EDT


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Valid HTML 4.0!

Valid CSS!





Home - Tour - Disclaimer - Privacy - Contact Us
Copyright © 2000,2002,2004 Lawskills.com