Bird v. State

• Decision Date: 14 October 1914
• Docket Number: 5.
• Parties: BIRD v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

83 S.E. 238

142 Ga. 596

BIRD v. STATE.

No. 5.

Supreme Court of Georgia

October 14, 1914

Syllabus by the Court.

Where a grand jury had been properly drawn, summoned, and impaneled to serve during a term of court continuing two weeks, and having completed their work at or near the end of the first week, were discharged by the court for the term, and on the day following their discharge a homicide was committed in the county in which the court was being held, and the court by appropriate written order directed the sheriff and regular bailiffs sworn at the term of the court then being held to resummon the same grand jury to reconvene during the second week of the court for the purpose of investigating the case of the person charged with the murder of the person killed and also to take into consideration any other matter that might legally come before the grand jury during the term such reconvoking of the grand jury was legal, and an indictment properly found by them against such person was also legal.

(a) The order of the court reconvening the grand jury, after they had been discharged, had the effect of abrogating the former order of discharge.

Under the facts of this case, there was no abuse of discretion in overruling the motion for a continuance.

One who loans money to another for the purpose of paying counsel to assist the solicitor general in the prosecution of a case of the state against one charged with murder is not disqualified to serve as a juror on the trial of such a case, where it does not appear that the juror has any interest in the prosecution or is otherwise disqualified.

The requests to charge the jury were substantially covered by the general charge of the court, and it was not error to decline them.

Under the evidence in this case, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter were not involved, and the court did not err in failing to charge the jury the law applicable thereto.

Where complaint is made that the solicitor general, during the trial of the case, indulged in improper remarks to the jury but no objection was made thereto at the time, and no ruling was invoked, this will not require a new trial. Herndon v. State, 111 Ga. 178 (3), 181, 36 S.E. 634, and cases cited.

The remaining assignments of error are without substantial merit. The verdict is supported by the evidence.

Error from Superior Court, Jasper County; J. B. Park, Judge.

Will Bird was convicted of murder, and brings error. Affirmed.

A. Y. Clement and H. T. Pope, both of Monticello, and B. F. Leverett, of Godfrey, for plaintiff in error.

Jos. E. Pottle, Sol. Gen., of Milledgeville, and Warren Grice, Atty. Gen., for the State.

HILL J.

Will Bird was indicted for the offense of murder, and the jury returned a verdict against him, without recommendation. A motion for a new trial was overruled, and he excepted.

1. Upon being arraigned in the court below the defendant filed his plea in abatement to the indictment, alleging that because of the facts therein averred the indictment was illegal and void, and wanting in the essential features of a legal indictment, by reason of the following: The February term 1914, of Jasper superior court convened on the third Monday in February, 1914, being the 16th day of the month, and the grand jury regularly selected, chosen, and sworn for that term completed their work, and returned their presentments and recommendations into court, and were discharged for the term on Friday February 20, 1914. On Saturday night, February 21st, the homicide for which the defendant was indicted was committed. The superior court of Jasper county may hold for two weeks, under the law. It being in session the second week, the presiding judge, on Wednesday, February 25th, recalled the 21 members of the grand jury which had been discharged on Friday of the previous week, for the purpose of considering the return of an indictment against the defendant. It was alleged that the grand jurors who returned the indictment were not legally drawn, summoned, or impaneled to investigate the case, but the presiding judge instructed the sheriff of Jasper county to summon the grand jurors who had been discharged for the term on Friday of the previous week to appear at court on Wednesday, February 25th, for the purpose of taking action on the homicide which occurred since their discharge; that the jurors thus notified by telephone or verbal message assembled on the 25th, during the second week of court, and, without being sworn or taking the oath required to be administered to grand jurors, proceeded to return the indictment against defendant;...