Baldwin v. Sapp, 32007
| Decision Date | 06 April 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 32007,32007 |
| Parties | Melvin BALDWIN et al., v. Lewis SAPP. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Eric G. Kocher, Waycross, for appellants.
Appellants were arrested and charged with aggravated assault and armed robbery. A commitment hearing was held on December 7, 1976. After hearing one witness for the prosecution and one for the defense, the justice of the peace found probable cause for the appellants' arrest and bound them over. Several other defense witnesses had been subpoenaed, but the justice of the peace declined to hear from them.
Appellants filed a pre-indictment habeas corpus petition in superior court, alleging that they had been denied their right to present evidence at the commitment hearing under Code § 27-405 and that consequently their commitment to the custody of the sheriff was unlawful. The appeal is from the trial court's order denying relief after a hearing. The appellants have subsequently been indicted.
Appellants are correct in their contention that error was committed at the preliminary hearing by the denial of their right to call witnesses and present evidence. See Day v. State, 237 Ga. 538, 539, 228 S.E.2d 913 (1976). However, a majority of the court in Day also held that such an error in a preliminary hearing does not in and of itself afford grounds for relief where the defendant is subsequently indicted by a grand jury. Day v. State, supra at p. 539, 228 S.E.2d 913. See State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 54, 222 S.E.2d 343 (1976). Accordingly, appellants have not shown that they suffered any harm from the defective commitment hearing. If, as appellants contend, they have been injured by the denial of an opportunity to preserve testimony favorable to them or otherwise, this may be established only upon the trial of the case.
Judgment affirmed.
I agree with the majority that error was committed at the preliminary hearing, but I do not agree with the conclusion that this is not reversible error. Day v. State, 237 Ga. 538, 228 S.E.2d 913 (1976), was a post-indictment, post-conviction appeal while this is a habeas corpus action filed prior to indictment. In McClure v. Hopper, 234 Ga. 45, 48, 214 S.E.2d 503, 506 (1975), we specifically said that although denial of a commitment hearing was "not ground for post-conviction habeas corpus due to mootness,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. City of Atlanta, 31984
...at the commitment hearing has no effect on the legality of the indictment under which appellant is presently detained. Baldwin v. Sapp, 238 Ga. 597, 234 S.E.2d 513; Day v. State, 237 Ga. 538, 539, 228 S.E.2d 913 (1976); Allen v. Caldwell, 231 Ga. 442(1), 202 S.E.2d 35 (1973). Therefore, any......
-
Barksdale v. State, 62640
...record show that appellant was injured by the denial of the opportunity to preserve testimony favorable to him. See Baldwin v. Sapp, 238 Ga. 597, 234 S.E.2d 513 (1977). Moreover, appellant was subsequently indicted for the offense which was the subject of the preliminary hearing. Walker v. ......
-
Walker v. State, 55140
...will not, in and of themselves, afford grounds for relief when the defendant is subsequently indicted by a grand jury. Baldwin v. Sapp, 238 Ga. 597, 234 S.E.2d 513 (1977); Day v. State, 237 Ga. 538, 228 S.E.2d 913 2. An analysis of the arrest and search here shows that the arrest was lawful......
-
Banks v. State, 61091
...no harmful error has been shown. See in this connection State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 54(1) (2), 222 S.E.2d 343; Baldwin v. Sapp, 238 Ga. 597, 234 S.E.2d 513. We find no merit in this Judgment affirmed. QUILLIAN, C. J., and POPE, J., concur. ...