
    PEOPLE v. PRICE
    1. Criminal Law — Motions—New Trial — Newly-Discovered Evidence — Discretion.
    The granting of a motion for a new trial in a criminal ease on the basis of newly-discovered evidence in discretionary, and appellate relief from denial of the motion is granted only on a showing of abuse of discretion.
    2. Criminal Law — Motions—New Trial — Newly-Discovered Evidence — Affidavits—Discretion.
    The trial court did not abuse discretion when its denial of a motion for a new trial was fully supported by affidavits and the rules governing newly-discovered evidence.
    References for Points in Headnotes
    [1, 2] 39 Am Jur, New Trial §§ 156-176.
    Newly-discovered evidence, corroborating testimony given only by a party or other interested witness, as ground for new trial. 158 ALR 1253.
    Appeal from Wayne, Theodore R. Bohn, J.
    Submitted Division 1 August 11, 1970, at Detroit.
    (Docket No. 6,784.)
    Decided October 2, 1970.
    Jimmy Ray Price was convicted of first-degree murder. Defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Gahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Dominick R. Garnovale, Chief, Appellate Department, and Thomas P. Smith, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
    
      Tom Downs, for defendant on appeal.
    
      Before: Lesinski, C. J., and Y. J. Brennan and O’Hara, JJ.
    
      
       Former Supreme Court Justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.
    
   Per Curiam.

Defendant Jimmy Ray Price was found guilty by a jury of murder in the first degree contrary to MCLA §750.316 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev §28.548), and sentenced to life imprisonment. Defendant filed a motion for new trial, supported by affidavits, asserting that the search warrant issued to permit the search for and seizure of the murder weapon, a rifle, did not include the term “rifle” when served and that newly-discovered evidence had been found supporting defendant’s claim of innocence.

The motion was denied below. The trial court was satisfied from the affidavits by the stenographer who typed the search warrant and the police officer who sought the warrant that the word “rifle” was in the search warrant, when it was signed by the issuing magistrate. Further, the court believed that the alleged new evidence could have been discovered on or before the date of trial.

The granting of a motion for new trial on the basis of newly-discovered evidence is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Relief from denial of such a motion will not be granted unless there is a clear showing of abuse of discretion by the trial court. People v. Hill (1970), 21 Mich App 178. We have reviewed the action taken below and find that the trial court’s denial of the motion was fully supported by the affidavits before it and by the rules governing newly-discovered evidence. (See, generally, People v. LoPresto [1967], 9 Mich App 318, 324.) There was no abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.  