Cummings v. State, (No. 2315.)
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
| Writing for the Court | BECK |
| Citation | 151 Ga. 593,107 S.E. 771 |
| Decision Date | 16 June 1921 |
| Docket Number | (No. 2315.) |
| Parties | CUMMINGS v. STATE. |
107 S.E. 771
CUMMINGS
v.
STATE.
(No. 2315.)
Supreme Court of Georgia.
June 16, 1921.
Error from Superior Court, Baldwin County; J. B. Park, Judge.
Madison Cummings was convicted of murder, and he brings error. Reversed.
Allen & Pottle, of Milledgeville, for plaintiff in error.
Doyle Campbell, Sol. Gen., and A. T. Clement, both of Monticello, R. A. Denny, Atty. Gen., and Graham Wright, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
BECK P. J. Madison Cummings was indicted for the offense of murder, and upon the trial of the case the jury returned a verdict of guilty, with recommendation that he be imprisoned for life in the penitentiary. A motion for new trial was made, and upon the hearing thereof it was overruled; to this judgment a writ of error to this court was sued out.
The only question presented for determination by this court is whether the court abused its discretion in overruling the motion for a continuance made by the accused. The homicide occurred on Saturday, July 17, 1920, and the defendant was arrested and placed in jail the following day. The superior court of Baldwin county had been in session during the entire week ending July 17. The grand jury was not in session on Monday, July 19, but it reconvened on the morning of July 20, and on that day returned the indictment against Madison Cummings, charging him with murder. The case was called for trial on Wednesday morning, July 21, and upon the call of the case a member of the law firm of Allen & Pottle, sole counsel for the defendant, moved for a continuance for the term, and Mr. Pottle made the following oral statement to the court:
"We move for a continuance of the case for the term, on two grounds: First, the absence of material witnesses; and we will undertake to make technical showing about that later. We are required to present all the grounds at the same time, and I will state the other one: I state in my place as an officer of this court that this homicide took place on Saturday evening last, the 17th; that the defendant was arrested on Sunday following; that this court convened the following day, on Monday; both Judge Allen [one of defendant's counsel] and myself have been continuously engaged in the trial of business in this court and in the utmost exercise of diligence it has been impossible for us to have any conference with any of these witnesses. We therefore move to continue the case for the term, on the ground that this homicide happened last Saturday, and we have been continuously engaged in this court since, and have not had opportunity to confer with any of the witnesses in the case. In addition to that, the indictment in this case was returned by the grand jury on yesterday, Tuesday, the 20th."
The other member of the law firm also made a statement, reaffirming what Mr. Pottle had said, stating that they had not been employed in the case until Monday, which was the first opportunity that the defendant and his father, who was indicted with him, had had to secure counsel; that the firm had been engaged in the trial of cases in the court up to the time this case was called; that they had used all possible diligence in issuing subpoenas and otherwise to get the case ready for trial; and that neither he nor Mr. Pottle had had an opportunity to examine a single witness for the defendant. Thereupon the court made the following statement:
"This defendant is charged with the offense of murder and confined in jail. I wish to say that I am disposed to give counsel for the defendant sufficient time to confer with these witnesses. I understand from the sheriff these subpo?nas for these witnesses were not sent out until this morning, and the witnesses all answer except four witnesses, and I suppose counsel can confer with the witnesses present, and as soon as these other four witnesses come in they can confer with them. I wish to say to the witnesses for the defendant and for the state, I will check this case until 2 o'clock this afternoon."
It also appeared that counsel, promptly upon being employed, had subpoenas issued for the witnesses for the defendant. The case was checked until 2 o'clock that after-
[107 S.E. 772]noon, in accordance with the directions of the court, and by that time the four witnesses...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ivey v. State, (No. 3184.)
...this court did right in holding that the trial judge abused his discretion in this matter. It is distinguishable from Cummings v. State, 151 Ga. 593, 107 S. E. 771, where counsel for defendant had not had time to consult his witnesses and learn what they would swear to. Under the above auth......
-
Fair v. Balkcom, No. 21184
...Ga. 510, 123 S.E. 806. Those holding not sufficient time include Blackman v. State, supra; Reliford v. State, supra; Cummings v. State, 151 Ga. 593, 107 S.E. 771; Sheppard v. State, supra; and Jackson v. State, supra. These cases differ as to the facts and circumstances involved, so that wh......
-
Cartee v. State, Nos. 33824
...a day on which the defendants or counsel might have been able to locate their prime witness. See, in this connection, Cummings v. State, 151 Ga. 593, 596, 107 S.E. 771; Brown v. State, 120 Ga. 145, 147, 47 S.E. As we see it, under the provisions of Code, § 27-2002, which is peculiarly appli......
-
Tucker v. State, No. 51039
...on the trial.' Reliford v. State, 140 Ga. 777, 778, 79 S.E. 1128, 1129. See Brown v. State, 120 Ga. 145, 47 S.E. 543; Cummings v. State, 151 Ga. 593, 107 S.E. 771; Edwards v. State, 204 Ga. 384, 50 S.E.2d Defendant's predicament here is similar to that faced by the defendant in McArver v. S......
-
Ivey v. State, (No. 3184.)
...this court did right in holding that the trial judge abused his discretion in this matter. It is distinguishable from Cummings v. State, 151 Ga. 593, 107 S. E. 771, where counsel for defendant had not had time to consult his witnesses and learn what they would swear to. Under the above auth......
-
Fair v. Balkcom, No. 21184
...Ga. 510, 123 S.E. 806. Those holding not sufficient time include Blackman v. State, supra; Reliford v. State, supra; Cummings v. State, 151 Ga. 593, 107 S.E. 771; Sheppard v. State, supra; and Jackson v. State, supra. These cases differ as to the facts and circumstances involved, so that wh......
-
Cartee v. State, Nos. 33824
...a day on which the defendants or counsel might have been able to locate their prime witness. See, in this connection, Cummings v. State, 151 Ga. 593, 596, 107 S.E. 771; Brown v. State, 120 Ga. 145, 147, 47 S.E. As we see it, under the provisions of Code, § 27-2002, which is peculiarly appli......
-
Tucker v. State, No. 51039
...on the trial.' Reliford v. State, 140 Ga. 777, 778, 79 S.E. 1128, 1129. See Brown v. State, 120 Ga. 145, 47 S.E. 543; Cummings v. State, 151 Ga. 593, 107 S.E. 771; Edwards v. State, 204 Ga. 384, 50 S.E.2d Defendant's predicament here is similar to that faced by the defendant in McArver v. S......