Cooper v. State
| Decision Date | 13 December 1898 |
| Citation | 106 Ga. 119,32 S.E. 23 |
| Parties | COOPER. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Indictment — Demurrer — Disqualification of Ghand Juror—Proof of Venue.
1. Demurrer is not the proper method of attacking an indictment on the ground of the alleged disqualification of a grand juror.
2. Applying the decision of this court in Moye v. State, 65 Ga. 754, to the facts of the present case, it appears that the venue was not proved.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from superior court, Gwinnett county: N. L. Hutchins, Judge.
W. O. Cooper was convicted of assault, and from a judgment overruling certiorari he brings error. Reversed.
John R. Cooper, for plaintiff in error.
F. F. Juhan, Sol. City Court, and C. H. Brand, Sol. Gen., for the State.
The bill of exceptions in the present case alleges that the superior court of Gwinnett county erred in overruling a certiorari sued out by W. O. Cooper to review a verdict rendered in the city court of Lawrenceville finding him guilty of an assault upon an indictment for assault and battery which had been transferred from the superior court.
1. The petition for certiorari complains that the Judge of the city court erred in overruling a demurrer to the indictment based upon theground that one of the grand jurors was a brother-in-law of the person alleged to have been assaulted. Manifestly, a point of this kind cannot be properly raised by demurrer, but should have been presented by a motion to quash, or by a special plea in abatement, supported by evidence.
2. It was also alleged in the petition for certiorari that the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence, and petitioner specifically averred that the venue was not proved. The only evidence as to venue was that "the difficulty occurred in Lawrenceville, in front of Dan Rutledge's store." Following the decision cited in the second headnote, we are constrained to hold that this was not sufficient proof of the venue. In Moye's Case, 05 Ga, 754, it appeared "that the crime was committed in the lumber yard of a Mr. Sloan, in the city of Americus"; and it was decided that this did not show affirmatively that the offense was committed in the county of Sumter, where the accused was tried. We presume this decision was based upon the idea that, as it was not proved the "city of Americus, " in question, was within this state, the court could not assume it was a Georgia city. If it had been proved that the offense was committed in Americus, Ga., doubtless judicial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graham v. State
...80. 15. Dickerson v. State, 186 Ga. 557, 199 S.E. 142 (1938); Murphy v. State, 121 Ga. 142-143, 48 S.E. 909 (1904); Cooper v. State, 106 Ga. 119, 120, 32 S.E. 23 (1898). 16. See Milich, Georgia Rules of Evidence, § 4.2, p. 32 (1995). 17. FRE 201(g). See Milich, supra, § 4.2 p. 32, n. 32. Wi......
-
Davis v. State, 29294.
...venue in any particular county of this state" Casper v. State, 43 Ga.App. 152, 157 S.E. 883; Moye v. State, 65 Ga. 754; Cooper v. State, 106 Ga. 119(2), 32 S.E. 23; Wooten v. State, 119 Ga. 745, 47 S.E. 193; Murphy v. State, 121 Ga. 142, 48 S.E. 909; Smith v. State, 2 Ga. App. 413, 414, 58 ......
-
Witcher v. State, 33767
...Ga. 142, 48 S.E. 909. Nor that the crime was committed 'in Lawrenceville in front of Dan Rutledge's store' sufficient. Cooper v. State, 106 Ga. 119, 120, 32 S.E. 23.' Gibson v. State, This case is differentiated from the case of Porter v. State, 76 Ga. 658, in that in that case the venue wa......
-
Gamblin v. State, (No. 15810.)
...crime is committed, and the venue must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Murphy v. State, 121 Ga. 142 (48 S. E. 909); Cooper v. State, 106 Ga. 119 (32 S. E. 23), Smith v. State, 2 Ga. App. 413 (58 S. E. 549) "In this case the question as to failure to prove venue is specifically raised i......