Dingler v. State
| Decision Date | 08 January 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 29365,29365 |
| Citation | 211 S.E.2d 752,233 Ga. 462 |
| Parties | Tommy DINGLER, Sr. v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Gammon & Anderson, Joseph N. Anderson, Cedartown, for appellant.
John T. Perren, Dist. Atty., Dallas, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The Court of Appeals has certified the following question: 'When two or more crimes are charged in separate counts in a single indictment, though committed at different times and places and involving transactions with different persons, and are of the same general nature or species, and the mode of trial is the same, is it mandatory that the trial judge, upon motion of defendant, order separate trials for each of the crimes charged?'
The problem is well-stated in ABA Standards Relating to the Administration of Criminal Justice, p. 285 (1974):
The Criminal Code of Georgia has one provision on this subject: 'If the several crimes arising from the same conduct are known to the proper prosecuting officer at the time of commencing the prosecution and are within the jurisdiction of a single court, they must be prosecuted in a single prosecution except . . . the court in the interest of justice may order that one or more of such charges be tried separately.' Code Ann. § 26-506(b) and (c). Necessarily, then, severance in this particular kind of circumstance lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge since the facts in each case are likely to be unique.
The ABA Standards on Joinder of Offenses provides: 'Two or more offenses may be joined in one charge, with each offense stated in a separate count, when the offenses, whether felonies or misdemeanors or both: (a) are of the same or similar character, even if not part of a single scheme or plan; or (b) are based on the same conduct or on a series of acts connected together or constituting parts of a single scheme or plan.' ABA Standards, supra, p....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seals v. State
...section, the court in the interest of justice may order that one or more of such charges be tried separately."); Dingler v. State , 233 Ga. 462, 463-464, 211 S.E.2d 752 (1975) (adopting ABA's standard on severance of charges).9 Only two cases from our Court have explicitly addressed the use......
-
Tucker v. Tucker
...that they are of the same or similar character, the defendant shall have a right to a severance of the offenses." Dingler v. State , 233 Ga. 462, 463, 211 S.E.2d 752 (1975) (citation and punctuation omitted). If severance had been mandatory in this case, the motion to sever would not have b......
-
Bright v. State
...of the crimes without permitting evidence of the other. Stewart v. State, 239 Ga. 588, 589, 238 S.E.2d 540 (1977); Dingler v. State, 233 Ga. 462, 463, 211 S.E.2d 752 (1975). It is undisputed that Bright used crack cocaine before and after the murders, that he spent the day of the murders en......
-
Jarrell v. State
...interests of the accused are to be balanced with the interests of the state. ABA Standards, supra, pp. 285-286. See also Dingler v. State, 233 Ga. 462, 211 S.E.2d 752. In the case before us, the testimony regarding the victim's automobile and the fingerprint identification of the defendant ......
-
MISSING THE MISJOINDER MARK: IMPROVING CRIMINAL JOINDER OF OFFENSES IN CAPITAL-SENTENCING JURISDICTIONS.
...of all types of offenses. DEL. SUPER. CT. R. CRIM. P. 8(a). For Georgia, see GA. CODE ANN. [section] 16-1-7 (2019); Dingier v. State, 211 S.E.2d 752, 753 (Ga. 1975). Georgia's joinder provision primarily concerns itself with multiple prosecutions for the same crime. See [section] 16-1-7. Wh......