Culpepper v. State
| Citation | 161 S.E. 623,173 Ga. 799 |
| Decision Date | 13 November 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 8443.,8443. |
| Parties | CULPEPPER . v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The surname of the defendant must be alleged in the charging part of an accusation, and its omission therefrom is fatal to the indictment.
2. Where, by mistake in drawing an accusation, a named person is charged as the perpetrator of an offense instead of the person who in fact committed the same, such error is fatal and incurable; and the accusation is null and void as one upon which the real perpetrator of the crime alleged can be arraigned. This is so notwithstanding the clear inference from the record is that the surname of the prosecutor was inadvertently inserted in the accusation as the perpetrator of the offense, instead of one Culpepper, who was in fact the person who committed the crime, and notwithstanding the further fact that on the back of the accusation was the statement of the case as that of "The State v. Ed. C. Culpepper."
3. Where the accusation was based upon the affidavit of Albert Magruder, where Ed C. Magruder was charged in the body of the accusation as the perpetrator of the crime, and where the given name of Culpepper was Ed G., the accusation cannot be upheld upon the ground that Culpepper was described by misnomer as the guilty party. If the doctrine of misnomer applies at all, it is applicable to the person charged in the accusation as the perpetrator of the offense, and not to Culpepper.
4. If Culpepper had been accused, pleaded, tried, and convicted under the name of Ed C. Magruder, it might be true that he could not take advantage of the fact that he was not charged in the accusation by his true name. If he had pleaded to the accusation under the name of Ed C. Magruder and had been convicted under that name, he could not take advantage of the fact that he was not accused and convicted under his true name; but he pleaded to the accusation in his true name.
Certified Question from Court of Appeals.
E. C. Culpepper brings error to the Court of Appeals, and it certifies question.
Question answered.
The Court of Appeals certified to this court the following question:
R. A. McGraw, of Greenville, for plaintiff in in error.
J. F. Hatchett, S61., of Greenville, for the State.
In the view which we take of this case, misnomer of Ed C. Culpepper is not involved. Misnomer as a mistake in a name, the giving of an incorrect name to a person in an accusation, indictment, pleading, or otherinstrument. 40 C. J. 1224. Culpepper was not named by misnomer in this accusation. The defect in the accusation is that it did not name Culpepper as the perpetrator of the crime in the charging part thereof or elsewhere therein, by a misnomer or otherwise. The trouble,.is that it designated a distinct, and separate person as the perpetrator of the offense. The surname of the defendant must be alleged in the charging part of the accusation, and its omission therefrom is fatal to the accusation or indictment. 1 Wharton's Crim. Proc. § 139. The clause of an indictment for murder in which the deceased is designated the perpetrator of the crime cannot be regarded as immaterial, where it is the only clause which alleges the infliction of the mortal wound upon the body of the deceased. State v. Blan, 69 Mo. 322. Where by mistake in drawing an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. The State
...the omission of the defendant's name is fatal to that count of the indictment as to that defendant. Id.; see also Culpepper v. State, 173 Ga. 799, 800-801, 161 S.E. 623 (1931) Knapp v. State, 297 Ga.App. 844, 845-846(1), 678 S.E.2d 501 (2009) (accord). The record shows, however, that Count ......
-
Thornton v. State, A13A1867.
...clearly shows that Jordan was another name by which Thornton was known. In support of her argument, Thornton cites to Culpepper v. State, 173 Ga. 799, 161 S.E. 623 (1931) and Noeske v. State, 181 Ga.App. 778, 353 S.E.2d 635 (1987), but those cases are inapposite. Although Culpepper stated t......
-
Com. v. Brown Forman Distillers Corp.
...foreign cases as Surace v. Pio, 112 Me. 496, 92 A. 621; Fitzpatrick v. Pitcairn, 371 Ill. 203, 20 N.E. 2d 280; Culpepper v. State, 173 Ga. 799, 161 S.E. 623, 79 A.L.R. 217. As we read these cases they appear to hold that while a misnomer may be corrected in an indictment or a complaint, it ......
-
Knapp v. State
...traffic cases originating in the unincorporated area of the county.8 Judgment reversed. SMITH, P.J., and BERNES, J., concur. 1. 173 Ga. 799, 161 S.E. 623 (1931). 2. 181 Ga.App. 778, 779-780(2), 353 S.E.2d 635 3. 173 Ga. at 799-800, 161 S.E. 623 (citations omitted). 4. Id. at 801, 161 S.E. 6......