Cody v. State
| Decision Date | 29 October 1903 |
| Citation | 45 S.E. 622,118 Ga. 784 |
| Parties | CODY v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where an offense may be committed in one of several ways not repugnant to each other, a count is not double because it charges that the act was done in several of the ways prohibited by the statute.
2. Under such an indictment the state cannot be required to elect for which particular act it will ask a conviction.
3. Proof of the commission of any one of the prohibited acts will support a conviction.
4. The evidence established that the defendant had no visible means of support, was able to work, and lived an idle, immoral, and profligate life.
5. The fact that she occasionally did a little work, and earned small sums of money, insufficient to support her, was no answer to the general state of idleness in which she was shown to live.
Error from City Court of Americus; C. R. Crisp, Judge.
Hester Cody was convicted of vagrancy, and brings error. Affirmed.
J. R Williams, for plaintiff in error.
F. A Cooper, Sol. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was charged with the single offense of vagrancy which, under Pen. Code 1895, § 453, may be committed in either of several ways; and the count here is not double because it charges the commission of the offense in several of the methods prescribed by the statute, none of those alleged being repugnant to each other. At the trial the offense could have been established by proof of the commission of either of the prohibited acts, nor was the state bound to elect between them. Heath v. State, 91 Ga. 126, 16 S.E. 657; Wingard v. State, 13 Ga. 398; Stephen v. State, 11 Ga. 226 (2); Sims v. State, 110 Ga. 290, 34 S.E. 1020; Lascelles v. State, 90 Ga. 347, 16 S.E. 945 (4), 35 Am.St.Rep. 216; Pen. Code 1895, § 929.
Allowing the chief of police to remain in court to assist the Solicitor General was not erroneous. Keller v State, 102 Ga. 506, 31 S.E. 92 (1). It was not improper for the court to read only so much of the Code section as related to the acts of vagrancy set out in the indictment, and to exclude from the jury evidence of transactions occurring since the indictment. The grounds of the motion predicated upon the admission of illegal evidence do not set out what objections were urged, and cannot be considered. The evidence, though conflicting, was amply sufficient to show that the defendant had no property, was able to work, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial