State v. Workman

• Decision Date: 08 December 1892
• Citation: 16 S.E. 770,38 S.C. 550
• Parties: STATE v. WORKMAN.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

16 S.E. 770

38 S.C. 550

STATE v. WORKMAN.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

December 8, 1892

Appeal from general sessions circuit court of Newberry county; JAMES ALDRICH, Judge.

Motion by Amanda Workman to suspend her appeal from a criminal prosecution for the purpose of moving for a new trial in the court below. Denied.

Blease & Blease, for appellant.

Solicitor Schumpeet, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion to suspend this appeal, and to remand the case to the circuit court, for the purpose of enabling the appellant to move that court for a new trial upon the ground of after-discovered evidence. After a careful consideration of the affidavits submitted in support of the motion, we are constrained to say that we do not think such a prima facie showing has been made as would warrant this court in suspending the appeal for the purpose indicated. The evidence claimed to have been subsequently discovered is that of a witness who was fully examined at the trial, and the fact (if it be a fact) that she has, subsequent to the trial, made statements contradictory of her testimony on the trial, and more favorable to the appellant than those made by her under oath, when subjected to the test of a cross-examination, would not be sufficient to authorize the granting of a new trial. While we do not intend to even intimate that there was anything of the kind in this case, yet, if such a ground should be held sufficient to sustain a motion like this it would open the door to fraud and perjury, and cause interminable delays in the trial of causes. The motion is therefore refused, and the appeal will be set down for hearing during the time heretofore assigned for the hearing of causes from Newberry county.