Benford v. State
| Decision Date | 24 April 1916 |
| Docket Number | 7111. |
| Citation | 88 S.E. 747,18 Ga.App. 14 |
| Parties | BENFORD v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
As a general rule, the trial judge may excuse jurors for any reason addressed to his sound discretion; but he cannot excuse a member of a regularly drawn and summoned jury unless he has some legal excuse (Judge v. State, 8 Ga. 173; Ellis v. State, 114 Ga. 36, 39 S.E. 881), and excusing such a juror over the timely objection of the defendant in a criminal case may require the grant of a new trial. Cunneen v. State, 96 Ga. 406, 23 S.E. 412; Cochran v. State, 113 Ga. 736, 39 S.E. 337. Still, in the present case, under the recitals of the trial judge in his explanatory note, it does not appear that it was error to excuse the jurors in question, since it is not made to appear what reason was given to the judge, if any, why the jurors should not be excused. It cannot be held that the presumption that the court had a legal reason for excusing the jurors was rebutted, or that the court did not, in fact, have a valid reason for excusing them, and therefore it cannot be held that it was an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court to excuse such jurors.
Where a party objects to a juror's being excused, it is incumbent upon him to show a reason why the juror should not be excused; per contra, the judge is not required to give his reason for excusing a juror.
It is a matter of discretion for a trial judge whether the panels of jurors required by law shall be filled by waiting for the return of jurors engaged in the trial of another case or by summoning tales jurors.
The exception in the bill of exceptions to the overruling of the challenge to the array comes too late, and no exceptions pendente lite were preserved; and the ruling upon a challenge to the array cannot be brought into review by a motion for a new trial. Consequently the complaint as to the challenge cannot be considered.
The evidence authorized the verdict, and it was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.
Error from City Court of Dublin; Jas. B. Hicks, Judge.
J. R. Benford was convicted of crime, and brings error. Affirmed.
H. B. Wimberly and J. S. Adams, both of Dublin, for plaintiff in error.
S. P. New, Sol., of Dublin, for the State.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Herndon v. State
... ... 581; Jones v. Daniel, 106 ... Ga. 850, 33 S.E. 41; Strickland v. State, 115 Ga ... 222, 41 S.E. 713; State Mutual, etc., Ass'n v ... Kemp, 115 Ga. 355, 41 S.E. 652; Waters v ... State, 158 Ga. 510, 123 S.E. 806; Whitton v ... Barrow, 159 Ga. 57, 124 S.E. 874; Benford v ... State, 18 Ga.App. 14 (4), 88 S.E. 747. Accordingly, the ... motion for a new trial, so far as it pertains to these ... matters, does not present any question of error for decision ... by this court ... The ... assignments of error upon the same rulings as contained ... ...
-
Hargroves v. State
...274, 60 S. E. 840; Williford v. State, 121 Ga. 173 (2), 48 S. E. 962; Whit-ton v. Barrow, 159 Ga. 57, 124 S. E. 874; Ben-ford v. State, 18 Ga. App. 14 (4), 88 S. E. 747. 2. The accused made a statement shortly after his arrest, in which he confessed the homicide, but claimed that the killin......
- Benford v. State