Couch v. The State
| Decision Date | 31 March 1859 |
| Citation | 28 Ga. 64 |
| Parties | COUCH. vs. THE STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Indictment, from Cass county. Decision by Judge Trippe, at September Term, 1858.
Jesse Couch, the plaintiff in error, was indicted for keeping open a tippling house on the Sabbath day. At the term of the court next after that at which the indictment was found, and before the juries were discharged, the defendant moved to place his demand for trial on the minutes of the court. This motion was made before the case was reached or called in its order for trial, and was refused by the court.
At the succeeding term, (September, 1858,) defendant appearing and demanding a trial, there being a jury impannelled and qualified to try said cause, moved to be discharged and acquitted of the offence charged in theindictment. This motion the court overruled, and counsel for defendant excepted.
W. T. Wofford, for plaintiff in error.
Sol. Gen. Johnson, contra.
By the Court.—McDonald, J., delivering the opinion.
The plaintiff in error did not except to the decision made by the court refusing to allow his demand of a trial to be placed on the minutes, at the term of the court at which the demand was first made, hut he excepted to the decision of the court at a subsequent term refusing an order of acquittal and discharge from the offence for which he was indicted. On this last decision error is assigned. It was the right of the defendant to demand a trial at the term of the court at which he applied to make the demand, and to have it entered on the minutes of the court; and it was the duty of the presiding judge to allow the demand to be placed on the minutes of the court. It was no reason to refuse it, that the cause was not called in its order. The object of the act is to insure to defendants a speedy trial, and nothing can defeat their right, except the want of a jury qualified to try the cause. Defendants are entitled to the precedence over all other causes for trial, provided they make the demand legally. But when they apply for an order for their discharge and acquittal of the offence, they must shew from the minutes of the court, that they had demanded a trial at a previous term of the court. In this case the plaintiff in error shewed no demand by the minutes. He did not except to the decision of the court when that demand was refused him. So far as this case is concerned, it is the same as if no effort of the sort had been made. Had a demand of trial been established by competent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reid v. State, 42954
...subsequently to the Code of 1863. In the Moore case, the Supreme Court set forth and cited with approval both the Dacey case and Couch v. State, 28 Ga. 64, as supporting the view that the remedy for the refusal to enter a demand for trial on the minutes of the court is by writ of error, whi......
-
Jeffries v. State, 52629
...involved the refusal of the trial court to order the inscribing of the demand upon the minutes. See Dacey v. State, 15 Ga. 286; Couch v. State, 28 Ga. 64; Sharpe v. State, 10 Ga.App. 212, 73 S.E. 33; Odom v. State, 25 Ga.App. 746(1), 105 S.E. 54. Thus it was held that merely presenting a de......
-
Wright v. State, 37152
...ever presented to the trial judge and ordered allowed or spread upon the minutes of the court as required by law. Code, § 27-1901; Couch v. State, 28 Ga. 64; Hunley v. State, 105 Ga. 636, 639, 31 S.E. 543; Graham v. State, 1 Ga.App. 682, 57 S.E. 1055. Ground 4 of the motion for new trial al......
-
Parker v. State, 50885
...and qualified to try him, he shall be absolutely discharged and acquitted of the offense charged in the indictment. Code § 27-1901; Couch v. State, 28 Ga. 64. 3. A defendant who has made a proper demand for a trial is entitled to an automatic discharge without further motion if he is not tr......