Delk v. State

• Citation: 26 S.E. 752,99 Ga. 667
• Parties: DELK. v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 19 October 1896
• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

26 S.E. 752
99 Ga. 667

DELK.
v.
STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Oct. 19, 1896.

Homicide—Benefit of Counsel—Continuance— Appeal—Review.

1. A person being tried for the commission of a crime receives "the privilege and benefit of counsel, " within the meaning of the fifth paragraph of the "Bill of Rights" (Code, § 4997), whenever, being himself unwilling or unable, from poverty or other cause, to procure counsel of his own choice, the court assigns to his defense counsel from members of the legal profession who may be present at the time of the trial, and who undertake in good faith to represent the interests of the accused. In such case it will, in the absence of satisfactory proof to the contrary, be presumed that the counsel so assigned are of sufficient experience and possess the requisite legal attainment to satisfy the constitutional requirement above cited.

2. If, after conviction, other counsel be employed by the accused, who move for a new trial, claiming that the counsel actually assigned by the court to represent him at the trial were so inexperienced and incompetent as that their appearance upon his behalf did not amount to giving to the accused the benefit of counsel, the question thus sought to be raised is not presented where neither the motion is made upon that ground, nor the evidence submitted in support of it authenticated in such manner as to authorize its consideration by this court.

3. There was no error in refusing to continue a murder case in order to allow the ac cused to obtain evidence tending to show that a person jointly indicted with him had confessed the perpetration of the homicide.

4. This court will not reverse the judgment of a trial judge in refusing to grant a continuance upon grounds or for reasons not made or stated when the motion for a continuance was presented. Accordingly, where counsel for the accused did not inform the judge that they needed or desired additional time to prepare the defense, or ask for a continuance of the case or a postponement of the trial in order that they might have further time for this purpose, this court cannot assume that such time was needed, or hold that the trial judge should have allowed it without being so requested.

5. The evidence fully warranted the verdict. It does not appear that the accused was denied or deprived of any of his legal or constitutional rights; and there is nothing in the motion for a new trial, nor any reason disclosed by the record, which would warrant this court in...