Buchanan v. State, 20802
| Decision Date | 16 March 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 20802,20802 |
| Citation | 215 Ga. 791,113 S.E.2d 609 |
| Parties | James Evans BUCHANAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. It is only in cases where laws are applied differently to different persons under the same or similar circumstances that the equal protection of the laws is denied.
2. The court will not inquire into the sufficiency of the evidence upon which an indictment returned by a grand jury is based.
3. An indictment is sufficient which charges the offense in the language of the Code, or so plainly that its nature may be easily understood.
James Evans Buchanan was indicted for robbery by use of an offensive weapon. Before pleading to the indictment, he filed a motion to dismiss and quash the indictment upon the ground that he had been denied equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, Amend. 14, and the Constitution of the State of Georgia, art. 1, § 1, par. 2, in that he was not permitted to appear before the grand jury that indicted him and to examine the witnesses who appeared before it. After hearing evidence on this question, the motion was denied.
Thereafter a second motion to dismiss and quash the indictment was filed upon the ground that there was no legal evidence before the grand jury that found the indictment true upon which an indictment could be found. After a hearing, this motion was likewise denied.
The defendant also filed demurrers to the indictment. All grounds of the demurrer were overruled. To the above rulings, the defendant excepted.
Robert J. Noland, Douglasville, for plaintiff in error.
Luther C. Hames, Jr., Sol. Gen., Marietta, for defendant in error.
The first motion to dismiss and quash the indictment in this case, in which it was contended that the defendant had been denied equal protection of the laws, is without merit because the motion is insufficient to show any denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution of the United States or of the State of Georgia. It is simply alleged that the defendant was not permitted to appear before the grand jury that indicted him and to examine the witnesses who appeared before it. It is alleged neither that the defendant had any right under the laws and the Constitutions of the United States or of the State to appear before the grand jury; nor that there are other citizens belonging to a class to which this defendant belongs who are accorded rights of which he has been denied; nor that he has been denied any right accorded to other citizens in circumstances the same as or similar to those in which he finds himself. 'It is only in cases where laws are applied differently to different persons under the same or similar circumstances that the equal protection of the laws is denied.' Baugh v. City of LaGrange, 161 Ga. 80, 130 S.E. 69; City of Valdosta v. Harris, 156 Ga. 490, 119 S.E. 625; Georgia S. & Fla. Ry. Co. v. Adkins, 156 Ga. 826, 120 S.E. 610. It therefore follows, it was not error to deny this motion.
2. In the second motion to dismiss and quash the indictment, it is insisted that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reaves v. State
...as to McDuffie's statements, as well as his testimony as to Hulett's statements, is inadmissible as hearsay. In Buchanan v. State, 215 Ga. 791(2), 113 S.E.2d 609 (1960), the question of whether the evidence before the grand jury can ever be inquired into was left undecided. However, it was ......
-
Jackson v. State
...The legal sufficiency of the pleading, not the evidence, is the issue. Id. The latter will not be inquired into. Buchanan v. State, 215 Ga. 791, 793, 113 S.E.2d 609 (1960); Brown v. State, 121 Ga.App. 228, 173 S.E.2d 470 "The true test of the sufficiency of an indictment ... is found in the......
-
Williams v. State
...to engage in the investigation as to whether the evidence before a grand jury was sufficient to warrant an indictment. Buchanan v. State, 215 Ga. 791, 113 S.E.2d 609. Under these prior rulings, which we follow and approve, these grounds are without 3. We come now to alleged error number 9 w......
-
Williams v. State
...to different persons under the same or similar circumstances that the equal protection of the law is denied." Buchanan v. State, 215 Ga. 791, 792, 113 S.E.2d 609, 611 (1960). See Chatterton v. Dutton, 223 Ga. 243, 154 S.E.2d 213 (1967) in which the court said, "the guaranty of equal protect......