Aldrich v. State
| Decision Date | 17 June 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 22531,22531 |
| Citation | 220 Ga. 132,137 S.E.2d 463 |
| Parties | Freddy R. ALDRICH v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
That portion of Ga.L.1960, pp. 1122, 1123 (Code Ann. § 68-406.2) which requires an operator of a motor vehicle to drive it upon the scales which ordered to do so by a State agent, or failing, to pay a fine of $200, is, in view of the provisions of Ga.L.1941, p. 449, as amended (Ga.L.1951, p. 772; 1955, p. 392; 1956, p. 83; 1959, p. 27; Code Ann. §§ 68-405 and 68-9921), making the operator of a vehicle weighing more than therein provided, guilty of a crime, offensive to Art. 1, Sec. 1, Par. VI of the Constitution of 1945, and is void. It was error to overrule the demurrer to the accusation charging the accused with a violation of Ga.L.1960, p. 1122, supra.
Dan L. Lanier, Metter, for plaintiff in error.
Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Richard L. Chambers, Horace E. Campbell, Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, for defendant in error.
An act approved March 27, 1941, as thereafter amended (Ga.L.1941, pp. 449 452; Ga.L.1951, pp. 772, 774; 1955, pp. 392, 393; 1956, pp. 83, 85; 1959, p. 27; Code Ann. §§ 68-405 and 68-9921), makes it a crime to violate the dimensions, length and weights of motor vehicles as therein provided. Another amendment to this Act, approved March 17, 1960 (Ga.L.1960, pp. 1122, 1123; Code Ann. § 68-406.2), provides that if the operator of a motor vehicle sought to be weighed and measured 'shall refuse to stop upon proper order or to drive the vehicle upon the scales as directed * * * said operator shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $200.00.' Thus is seen that by the 1941 Act, supra, operating a vehicle weighing over the maximum allowed is a crime. For the operator to be forced, as is provided in the 1960 Act, to drive his vehicle upon the scales would be compelling him to produce evidence tending to incriminate him. The accused was charged with having refused to obey an order to drive his vehicle onto the scales in violation of the law. He demurred to the accusation upon the ground that the law upon which it was based violated the Constitution, Art. I, Sec. I, Par. VI (Code Ann. § 2-106; Const. of 1945) which provides that: 'No person shall be compelled to give testimony tending in any manner to criminate himself.' Should the truck, when weighed, be over the weight permitted it would criminate the operator thereof under the 1941 Act above. There is no question but that for the accused to be forced to obey the portion of the 1960 Act requiring him to drive his vehicle upon the scales would have constituted evidence tending to incriminate him.
This leaves for decision only whether or not 'testimony' as found in the Constitution embraces all kinds of evidence? Fortunately, this court has many times decided that question by holding that the word 'testimony' means all types of evidence as the following decisions will illustrate. In Day v. State, 63 Ga. 667(2), it was said: At page 669, the clause of the Constitution is quoted, and then it is said: 'Nor can one, by force, compel another, against his consent, to put his foot in a shoe-track for the purpose of using it as evidence against him on the criminal side of the court.' Dealing with the same facts this court in Elder v. State, 143 Ga. 363, 85 S.E. 97, followed the ruling in the Day case, supra, and Evans v. State, 106 Ga. 519, 32 S.E. 659.
An extensive discussion of this question is found in Calhoun v. State, 144 Ga. 679, 87 S.E. 893. There the Constitution is quoted and it is then said at page 680, 87 S.E. at page 893: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dempsey v. Kaminski Jewelry, Inc., No. A05A2142.
... ... Axson v. Nat. Surety Corp., 254 Ga. 248, 250, 327 S.E.2d 732 (1985); see also Begner v. State Ethics Comm., 250 Ga. App. 327, 330(1), 552 S.E.2d 431 (2001) ... There is no blanket Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer ... State, 229 Ga. 511, 516-518, 192 S.E.2d 350 (1972) (removal of bullet from murder defendant's body does not implicate privilege); compare Aldrich v ... State, 220 Ga. 132, 134-135, 137 S.E.2d 463 (1964) (statute requiring truck driver to drive onto state scales violated privilege); Day v ... ...
-
Olevik v. State
...that "the framers of that Constitution intended for it to have the meaning theretofore given it by construction." Aldrich v. State, 220 Ga. 132, 135, 137 S.E.2d 463 (1964). When we consider the original public meaning, we necessarily must focus on objective indicators of meaning, not the su......
-
Elliott v. State
...264 Ga. 4, 6, 439 S.E.2d 906 (1994) ; Toombs County v. O'Neal, 254 Ga. 390, 391-392 (2), 330 S.E.2d 95 (1985) ; Aldrich v. State, 220 Ga. 132, 135, 137 S.E.2d 463 (1964) ; Hancock, 211 Ga. at 432 (1), 86 S.E.2d 511 ; Griffin v. Vandegriff, 205 Ga. 288, 293, 53 S.E.2d 345 (1949) ; see also M......
-
Ammons v. State
...provided by Day and Calhoun .").We first applied a version of this presumption to the self-incrimination provision in Aldrich v. State , 220 Ga. 132, 137 S.E.2d 463 (1964). There, we remarked that, "[f]ortunately" for us, we did not have to wrestle with the constitutional text to determine ......
-
Is There a Georgia Supreme Court, Problem? Analyzing the Georgia Supreme Court's New Peculiar Approach Towards Breathalyzers and Implied Consent Law
...illegal upon the principle that the accused cannot be compelled to do or say anything that may tend to criminate him . . . . Id.22. 220 Ga. 132, 137 S.E.2d 463 (1964).23. Id. at 133, 137 S.E.2d at 464. 24. Id. at 132, 134, 137 S.E.2d at 463, 464. For other articles looking at the history of......