Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Brown v. State

209 Ga. App. 314 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Brown v. State

7 Citing cases

  1. Lester v. State

    278 Ga. App. 247 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 17 times

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Brown v. State, 209 Ga. App. 314, 316-317 (2) ( 433 SE2d 321) (1993). Because evidence that the victim molested Lester's son was known to Lester before trial, it does not satisfy the definition of newly discovered evidence.

  2. Anderson v. State

    276 Ga. App. 216 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 4 times

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Brown v. State, 209 Ga. App. 314, 316-317 (2) ( 433 SE2d 321) (1993). In this case there is no evidence that the recanting co-defendant has been convicted of perjury.

  3. Cook v. State

    238 Ga. App. 341 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 4 times

    Plainly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant the motion for new trial. Brown v. State, 209 Ga. App. 314, 316 (2) ( 433 S.E.2d 321) (1993). Judgment affirmed. Blackburn, P. J., and Barnes, J., concur.

  4. Osborn v. State

    233 Ga. App. 257 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 12 times

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Brown v. State, 209 Ga. App. 314, 316 ( 433 S.E.2d 321) (1993). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for a new trial on this ground.

  5. Davis v. State

    221 Ga. App. 375 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that defendant's presence and knowledge of potential witness's involvement in incident precluded defendant from establishing first Timberlake factor

    Our review is circumscribed because "`motions for new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and a refusal to grant the motion will not be reversed unless [that] discretion is abused.' [Cit.]" Brown v. State, 209 Ga. App. 314, 316 (2) ( 433 S.E.2d 321) (1993). We first note that the new evidence here is not so much newly discovered as newly available, an important distinction noted in Hester v. State, 219 Ga. App. 256 (1) ( 465 S.E.2d 288) (1995).

  6. Patterson v. State

    441 S.E.2d 414 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 9 times
    Finding child victim's prior inconsistent statements constituted substantive evidence of defendant's guilt although child recanted at trial

    By our decision, we are rejecting the contention, made by appellant, that it cannot be a valid waiver unless the defendant knows the rules of evidence and is aware of the scientific ramifications and questionable reliability of such tests. See Brown v. State, 209 Ga. App. 314, 316 (1) ( 433 S.E.2d 321) (1993).

  7. Dixon v. Hart

    Case No. CV413-109 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 5, 2013)

    Setting aside the question of due diligence, this affidavit submitted by [Dixon] fails to meet the newly discovered evidence standard under well-settled Georgia law. "A post-trial declaration by a State witness that his former testimony was false is not cause for a new trial." Pryor v. State, 179 Ga. App. 293,294 (1986) (cit. omitted); Brown v. State, 209 Ga. App. 314, 316; Drake v. State, 248 Ga. 891, 894 (1982). Doc. 18-7 at 2-3.