O'bannon v. The State Of Ga.
Decision Date | 31 October 1885 |
Citation | 76 Ga. 29 |
Parties | O'Bannon. vs. The State of Georgia. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Criminal Law. Larceny. Charge of Court. Practice in Superior Court. Before Judge Simmons. Bibb Superior Court. April Term, 1885.
Charles O'Bannon was indicted for the larceny from the house of a ring belonging to Mrs. Laura P. Holdridge. On the trial, he was found guilty. He moved for a new trial on the following grounds:
(1), (2.) Because the verdict was contrary to law and evidence.
(3.) Because of the following colloquy between the court and jury, the latter having returned into court after being out for some time:
The court. "What is the trouble?
One of the jury. "The trouble in the mind of some is in regard to the finding of a verdict, and in regard to whether he appropriated the ring for his own use at the time he took it or afterwards."
Court. "How is that?"
Juror. "As to his guilt, if he appropriated it at first or in the use of it afterwards."
Court.
Juror. "We all agree that he made use of the ring afterwards, but some are not satisfied that he took the ring with the intention—that the intention to steal it was an afterthought of his."
Court.
Juror. "If he took the ring without her knowledge, —"
Court. "That makes larceny."
Juror. "At first?"
Court. "Yes."
Juror. "In the evidence, it is admitted that she saw the ring in possession of the defendant, and the jury cannot agree; they claim that inasmuch as Mrs Holdridge saw the defendant have the ring, twirl-ing it on his finger, that that was consent for him to take it, but that he afterwards appropriated it."
Court.
Juror. "She went off and forgot the ring."
Court. "Well, if he appropriated it, that would be larceny, unless she consented for him to have it."
(4.) Because the court received the verdict in the absence of the defendant's counsel, the jury having been out for some lime, and the counsel being within call of the court, as shown by the fact that he came in response to a call of the bailiff and met the jury before they had got out of the court-house.
[The court added the following note to the motion:
]
The motion was overruled, and the defendant excepted.
Sam. H. Jemison; A. O. Bacon, for plaintiff in error.
John L. Hardeman, solicitor general, for the state.
The plaintiff in error was indicted and found guilty of the offense of larceny from the house in the superior court of Bibb...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Powell v. Com.
...a verdict in the absence of counsel. Martin v. State, 79 Wis. 165, 48 N.W. 119; Barnard v. State, 88 Wis. 659, 60 N.W. 1058; O'Bannon v. State, 76 Ga. 29, 32; Baker v. State, 58 Ark. 513, 25 S.W. 603; Huffman v. State, 28 Tex.App. 174, 12 S.W. 588; State v. Boozer, 92 S.C. 495, 75 S.E. 864.......
-
Brown v. State
...Baldwin v. State, 138 Ga. 349, 75 S.E. 324. But in these cases new trials were not granted, under the special facts involved. In O'Bannon v. State, 76 Ga. 29, it was held: "There was no error in receiving the verdict in the absence of the prisoner's counsel, the prisoner being present." The......
-
Brown v. State
...Baldwin v. State, 138 Ga. 349, 75 S. E. 324. But in these cases new trials were not granted, under the special facts involved. In O'Bannon v. State, 76 Ga. 29, it was broadly held: "There was no error in receiving the verdict in the absence of the prisoner's counsel, the prisoner being pres......
-
Duke v. State, 39050
...868; Baldwin v. State, 138 Ga. 349, 75 S.E. 324.' Borwn v. State, 151 Ga. 497, 500, 107 S.E. 536, 538. In that case the ruling in O'Bannon v. State, 76 Ga. 29, to the effect that it was not error to receive a verdict in the absence of the defendant's counsel, the defendant himself being pre......