Daughtery v. State
| Decision Date | 11 April 1939 |
| Docket Number | 27457. |
| Citation | 2 S.E.2d 519,59 Ga.App. 898 |
| Parties | DAUGHTERY v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
I. J. Bussell, of Alma, for plaintiff in error.
John S. Gibson, Sol. Gen., of Douglas, for the State.
1. "The statutes prescribing the time for selecting the jury list are held to be merely directory, and, if the list is at a later date properly selected and returned, the delay furnishes no ground of objection to the panel." 35 C.J. 264. "The Statutes regulating the selection, drawing and summoning Jurors, are intended to distribute Jury duties amongst the citizens of the county, provide for rotation in Jury service, and to insure at each Court the attendance of persons to serve on Juries, and are no part of a regulation to secure to parties impartial Juries." Rafe v. State, 20 Ga. 60. The provisions of Code, § 59-107, as to the time the revision should be made is directory, only. Haden v. State, 176 Ga. 304, 305, 168 S.E. 272; Woolfolk v. State, 85 Ga. 69 (5), 11 S.E. 814; Pollard v. State, 148 Ga. 447-453, 96 S.E. 997; Rawlings v. State, 163 Ga. 406-419, 136 S.E. 448; Hulsey v. State, 172 Ga. 797 (4), 159 S.E. 270; State v. Clark, 51 W.Va. 457, 41 S.E. 204 (7); State v. Medley, 66 W.Va. 216, 66 S.E. 358, 18 Ann.Cas. 761; Thompson & Merriam on Juries, §§ 47, 145; 35 C.J. 264, § 217 (b); 12 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 277; 16 R.C.L. 236, §§ 53-57. The fact that the jury list should be revised every two years and that two years had elapsed since such revision had taken place has no effect on any rights guaranteed the defendant. Especially is this true where the court sets out in the record reasonable ground for such slight delay. Moreover, the code section provides that the list shall be revised biennially or if the judge so directs, triennially. The Court did not err in denying the challenge to the panel of jurors placed upon the defendant because the jury list had not been revised since August, 1936.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sims v. State
...comply with them does not violate any rights guaranteed to defendant. Haden v. State, 176 Ga. 304(1), 168 S.E. 272; Daughtery v. State, 59 Ga.App. 898, 2 S.E.2d 519. (d) The ground in the plea in abatement challenging the legal composition of the grand jury and the ground in the plea challe......
-
Burney v. State
...(1974); Sims v. State, 221 Ga. 190(1c), 144 S.E.2d 103 (1965); Haden v. State, 176 Ga. 304(1), 168 S.E. 272 (1933); Daugherty v. State, 59 Ga.App. 898, 2 S.E.2d 519 (1939). Therefore, the trial court's overruling of the appellant's jury challenge provides no ground for reversal. This enumer......
-
Pitts v. White
...246 Ala. 135, 19 So.2d 450; Caldwell v. State, 203 Ala. 412, 84 So. 272; Watson v. Coles, 170 Va. 141, 195 S.E. 506; Daughtery v. State, 59 Ga.App. 898, 2 S.E.2d 519; Haden v. State, 176 Ga. 304, 168 S.E. The provisions of the statute are for the purpose of providing for the orderly process......
-
State v. Parlor
...(1974); Sims v. State, 221 Ga. 190(1c), 144 S.E.2d 103 (1965); Haden v. State, 176 Ga. 304(1), 168 S.E. 272 (1933); Daughtery v. State, 59 Ga.App. 898, 2 S.E.2d 519 (1939). Burney v. State, 244 Ga. 33, 38(3), 257 S.E.2d 543 (1979). See also Al-Amin v. State, 278 Ga. 74, 80(7), 597 S.E.2d 33......