Rawlins v. State
| Decision Date | 27 July 1906 |
| Citation | 54 S.E. 924,126 Ga. 96 |
| Parties | RAWLINS et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The rulings made by this court when the cases of the present movants were before it on exceptions to the overruling of former motions for new trial are binding and conclusive adjudications; and a motion to review the decision then made cannot be entertained.
Newly discovered evidence which is merely cumulative or impeaching in character, relatively to that introduced on the trial will furnish no ground for the grant of a new trial on an extraordinary motion therefor, made after the overruling of an original motion for a new trial has been affirmed by this court.
Where a father, his three sons, and another were indicted for murder and convicted, though all claimed to be innocent, and they brought their cases to this court where the judgments were affirmed, the fact that the father afterwards confessed that he was guilty of sending another to murder the father of the children who were killed, but claimed that he did not authorize the killing of the children, and that his sons were not connected with the crime, but were innocent, and that he made an affidavit to that effect, would not require a new trial on an extraordinary motion therefor.
Whether such statements be considered in the light of confessions whereby the father sought to exculpate his sons, who were also convicted, or whether they be treated as newly discovered evidence of the father, who had been convicted of the same murder, and who had previously claimed to be innocent, and whose character was unsustained by any evidence, there was no error in overruling the extraordinary motion for new trial based on that ground.
There being evidence tending to show that several persons were indicted for the murder; that before and during his trial one of the accused was in frequent communication with one or both of his attorneys, and made a statement on the stand denying his guilt; that after a verdict of guilty and a refusal of a new trial exceptions were taken to this court, and afterwards to the Supreme Court of the United States, in both of which the judgment was affirmed; that the father of the defendant and two brothers were also indicted and convicted as participants in the crime; that evidence was introduced including that of his mother and two sisters, and that no claim was made that he was insane; after all this, newly discovered evidence tending to show that the accused was insane, and had so been for a period extending back of the commission of the offense, will not require the grant of his extraordinary motion for a new trial.
None of the grounds of the extraordinary motion required the grant of a new trial, and there was no error in overruling such motion.
Error from Superior Court, Lowndes County; R. G. Mitchell, Judge.
Milton Rawlins and others were convicted of murder. A motion for new trial after affirmance of the conviction for alleged newly discovered evidence was overruled, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.
There being evidence that several persons were indicted for murder that during the trial one of the accused was in frequent communication with his attorney, and made a statement denying his guilt; that after a verdict of guilty and refusal of new trial exceptions were taken to the Supreme Court and afterwards to the Supreme Court of the United States, in both of which the judgment was affirmed; that the father of the defendant and two brothers were also convicted as participants in the crime; that evidence was introduced including that of his mother and two sisters, and that no claim was made that he was insane--newly discovered evidence tending to show that he was insane and had been before the commission of the crime will not require the grant of an extraordinary motion for a new trial.
Milton, Leonard, and Jesse Rawlins, brothers, and Alf Moore, were indicted for the offense of murder; and J. G. Rawlins, their father, and Frank Turner were indicted as accessories before the fact. All were found guilty. Each of them, except Alf Moore, moved for a new trial, and upon a refusal of it each excepted, and brought his case to this court. In each case, except that of Turner, the judgment was affirmed. The cases were carried to the Supreme Court of the United States, where the judgment of this court was affirmed.
Milton Leonard, and Jesse Rawlins then made an extraordinary motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence since their conviction, and the affirmance of the judgment in their cases substantially as follows: They have learned that they can prove: (1) By their father, J. G. Rawlins,...
To continue reading
Request your trial