Cannady v. State
| Decision Date | 14 May 1940 |
| Docket Number | 13275. |
| Citation | 9 S.E.2d 241,190 Ga. 227 |
| Parties | CANNADY v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Counsel having been appointed at approximately the hour of 11:30 a m. on December 12, 1939, to defend the accused on the charge of murder, and the case having been called for trial on the following day at 11 a. m. o'clock, the court did not abuse its discretion in overruling a motion then made for a continuance on the ground that defendant's counsel had not had sufficient time within which to prepare for trial.
J. C. Newsom, and G. F. Dukes, Jr., both of Sandersville, for plaintiff in error.
W. H Lanier, Sol. Gen., of Metter, Ellis G. Arnall, Atty. Gen., E. J. Clower, Asst. Atty. Gen., and C. E. Gregory, Jr., of Decatur, for defendant in error.
James Cannady was convicted of murder committed on November 14, 1939, and was sentenced to be electrocuted. In his motion for new trial error was assigned on the court's refusal of a continuance of the trial, on motion based on the ground that his counsel had been given barely twenty-four hours in which to prepare therefor, which the movant's counsel contended was insufficient time in which to inquire into the mental condition of their client or otherwise prepare his defense; that both of the counsel were engaged during this time in attendance on court and in attending to other matters in connection therewith, and that before their appointment they had never known the defendant, or anything about his tendencies toward crime, or his mental condition, nor did they know the reputation of the deceased for violence, or his general character. There is no insistence on the general grounds of the motion for new trial, but it is urged that the judgment denying a new trial should be reversed because of the ruling stated in the headnote. That part of the record pertinent to the question is contained in the statement just preceding. No further light is thrown upon it by any recital in the bill of exceptions. It is the contention of the plaintiff in error that he has been deprived of the constitutional guaranty of the privilege and benefit of counsel, as contained in paragraph 5 of section 1 of article 1 of the constitution of this State (Code, § 2-105); and that the appointment of counsel to defend him, without allowance of sufficient time to prepare his defense, would be 'to keep the word of promise to our ear and break it to our hope.'
We recognize the principle thus contended for. Blackman v State, 76 Ga. 288; Reliford v. State, 140 Ga. 777, 79 S.E. 1128. But it must not be overlooked that on the trial court rests the duty of disposing of cases with reasonable dispatch. Unnecessary delay and undue haste in the administration of the law are both to be condemned. As...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...State, 151 Ga. 551, 107 S.E. 488; Harris v. State, 152 Ga. 193, 108 S.E. 777; Ivey v. State, 154 Ga. 63, 113 S.E. 175; Cannady v. State, 190 Ga. 227 (2), 9 S.E.2d 241. That the failure of counsel to introduce the witnesses who it is now claimed would have testified to facts or circumstances......
-
Townsend v. State
...154 Ga. 63 ; Gore v. State, 155 Ga. 642, 644, 645 ; Waters v. State, 158 Ga. 510(4) ; Holley v. State, 191 Ga. 804, 805(1) ; Cannady v. State, 190 Ga. 227, 228 ; Woodward v. State, 197 Ga. 60 ; Smith v. State, 198 Ga. 849 ; Allen v. State, 10 Ga. 85, 'The accused being under bond, and the c......
-
Townsend v. State
...154 Ga. 63 ; Gore v. State, 155 Ga. 642, 644, 645 ; Waters v. State, 158 Ga. 510(4) ; Holley v. State, 191 Ga. 804, 805(1) ; Cannady v. State, 190 Ga. 227, 228 ; Woodward v. State, 197 Ga. 60 ; Smith v. State, 198 Ga. 849 ; Allen v. State, 10 Ga. 85, 92(16). "The accused being under bond, a......
-
Blackston v. State, 17844
...clearly shown that he has abused his discretion. Code, § 81-1419; Roberts v. State, 14 Ga. 6; Long v. State, 38 Ga. 491; Cannady v. State, 190 Ga. 227, 9 S.E.2d 241; Moore v. State, 202 Ga. 357, 43 S.E.2d 251; Griffin v. State, 208 Ga. 746, 69 S.E.2d 192. The basis for a continuance here be......