Legal Opinion

Blankenship v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided June 10, 1982No. 63398PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Pope, Judge.

Danny Lee Blankenship brings this appeal from the trial court’s denial of his extraordinary motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. We affirm.

The thrust of appellant’s arguments on appeal is that the trial court erred in determining as a matter of law that the evidence offered in support of the motion for new trial was so inherently incredible that it was unlikely to produce a different verdict on retrial. See Burge v. State, 133 Ga. 431 (2) (66 SE 243) (1909). The evidence upon which appellant based his motion was for the most part provided by one Rodney Clark…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Bell v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1971
  2. Burge v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1909
  3. Drake v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1982
  4. Van Scoik v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1977
  5. Lord v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1980

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. LeGallienne v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1986
  2. Eliopulos v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1992
  3. Millwood v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1999
  4. Evans v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1986
  5. Clark v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1984

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API