169 S.E. 201 (Ga. 1933), 9382, Carr v. State
|Citation:||169 S.E. 201, 176 Ga. 747|
|Opinion Judge:||GILBERT, Justice.|
|Party Name:||CARR et al. v. STATE.|
|Attorney:||O. C. Hancock, of Atlanta, and W. A. McClellan, of Macon, for plaintiffs in error. John A. Boykin, Sol. Gen., John H. Hudson, and J. Walter Le Craw, all of Atlanta, for the State.|
|Judge Panel:||RUSSELL, C.J., dissenting. All the Justices concur, except RUSSELL, C.J., who dissents.|
|Case Date:||March 18, 1933|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Georgia|
Syllabus by the Court.
Statute cannot be declared unconstitutional because vague, meager, or indefinite, but such defects may be urged as ground of demurrer on theory that allegations of indictment are insufficient to state crime (Pen. Code 1910, § 954).
There is no constitutional right to advocate overthrow of United States government by force (Const. U.S. art. 4, § 4, par. 1).
1. The allegations of the indictment are sufficient to set out a criminal offense against the state under the Penal Code, § 56.
2. A statute cannot be declared unconstitutional because it is vague, meager, or indefinite. Such defects may be urged as a ground of demurrer, on the theory that the allegations of the indictment are insufficient to constitute a crime. Every indictment is sufficiently technical and correct which states the offense in the terms and language of the Code, or so plainly that the offense charged may be easily understood by the jury. Penal Code, § 954. The language of this indictment is so plain that any jury may easily understand it.
3. The demurrers raise or attempt to raise the questions of the constitutionality of Penal Code §§ 55 and 56, on which the indictment is based, that said statute violates article 1, § 1, par. 15, of the Constitution of Georgia (Civil Code 1910, § 6371), which has reference to the guarantee of liberty of speech and of the press; also, that it violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and also abridges the privileges of citizens guaranteed by that amendment (Civil Code 1910, § 6700). The demurrer does not undertake to point out the manner in which the statute violates the State and Federal Constitutions. If it can be said, however, that any or all of these constitutional questions are raised, the assignments of error fail to show any conflict with the Constitutions as contended. Compare Carr v. State, 176 Ga. 55, 166 S.E. 827, and Dalton v. State, 176 Ga. --, 169 S.E. 198.
Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; Edgar E. Pomeroy, Judge.
Joe Carr and another bring error.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP