Wilson v. State, A89A1622
| Decision Date | 01 November 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. A89A1622,A89A1622 |
| Citation | 193 Ga.App. 374,387 S.E.2d 642 |
| Parties | WILSON v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
P. Dewey Gill, Macon, for appellant.
Willis B. Sparks III, Dist. Atty., Graham A. Thorpe, Howard Sims, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
Cedric Wilson brings this appeal following his conviction of aggravated assault, asserting as his sole error the trial court's ruling which denied his amended motion for a new trial. He contends that the court should have ordered a psychological evaluation based on medical records submitted in conjunction with the motion to ascertain either his medical condition at the time of the offense, or his mental condition at the time of trial; and that if he has a mental illness he should not be held accountable for not disclosing this information to counsel prior to trial. Held:
OCGA § 5-5-23 provides for the grant of a new trial when the newly discovered evidence is "not merely cumulative or impeaching in its character but relating to new and material facts, is discovered by the applicant after the rendition of a verdict against him and is brought to the notice of the court within the time allowed by law for entertaining a motion for a new trial."
The evidence which appellant's counsel claims to be newly discovered is records of appellant's psychiatric problems which occurred some six years prior to the incident in question. There was no contention prior to or during trial that appellant was mentally incompetent either at the time the assault was committed or at the time of his trial. There is nothing in the trial transcript to demonstrate such an assertion. No attempt was made prior to trial by his attorney to determine his psychiatric history, and there was no showing in his motion that this newly discovered evidence was not available through the exercise of ordinary diligence. See Timberlake v. State, 246 Ga. 488, 491, 271 S.E.2d 792 (1980); Downs v. State, 141 Ga.App. 173, 174, 233 S.E.2d 32 (1977).
The grant or denial of a new trial based on newly discovered evidence is a decision within the sound discretion of the trial court. Its ruling will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion. Long v. State, 237 Ga. 110, 111, 227 S.E.2d 22 (1976). We find no abuse present in this case.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jefferson v. State
...was not in evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for a new trial. See Wilson v. State, 193 Ga.App. 374, 375, 387 S.E.2d 642 (1989). 2. Jefferson next contends the trial court erred by denying his motion in limine to exclude evidence that the 1990 victi......
-
Wright v. State, s. A93A1675
...of discretion in the trial court's denial of the motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Wilson v. State, 193 Ga.App. 374, 375, 387 S.E.2d 642 (1989). 2. Bell and Donald contend that the trial court erred in denying their motion for a mistrial on the basis of the St......
-
Browning v. State
...sound discretion of the trial court. Its ruling will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion. [Cit.]" Wilson v. State, 193 Ga.App. 374, 375, 387 S.E.2d 642 (1989). We agree with the trial court that the appellant has not shown that due diligence would not have revealed this evid......
-
McIntyre v. State
...verdict. There was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying a new trial sought on this ground. See Wilson v. State, 193 Ga.App. 374, 375, 387 S.E.2d 642 (1989). 2. There was no error in the trial court's refusal to admit evidence of polygraph test results favorable to the appell......