Forbus v. State
| Decision Date | 06 October 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 38840,38840 |
| Citation | 295 S.E.2d 530,250 Ga. 24 |
| Parties | FORBUS and Nicholson v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Thomas J. Charron, Dist. Atty., James T. Martin, Asst. Dist. Atty., Marietta, for the State.
J. Stephen Schuster, Marietta, for Phillip M. Forbus et al.
We granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals to consider whether a letter drafted by counsel for the appellants and delivered to the District Attorney reasonably might be construed as a demand for trial, so as to invoke the provisions of Code Ann. § 27-1901 under the standard of State v. Adamczyk, 162 Ga.App. 288, 290 S.E.2d 149 (1982). After consideration, we approve the holding in Adamczyk and find it applicable to this case. See Forbus v. State, 162 Ga.App. 307, 290 S.E.2d 559 (1982). It should be noted that Adamczyk is consistent with our recent holdings in McCarty v. State, 249 Ga. 618, 292 S.E.2d 700 (1982), State v. Madigan, 249 Ga. 571(2), 292 S.E.2d 406 (1982), and State v. Meminger, 249 Ga. 561(1), 292 S.E.2d 681 (1982).
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur, except SMITH, J., who dissents.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferris v. State
... ... For example, in Forbus v. State, 162 Ga.App. 307, 290 S.E.2d 559 (1982), aff'd 250 Ga. 24, 295 S.E.2d 530 (1982), a letter to the district attorney included, inter alia, a sentence asking that functionary to "please accept this letter as a formal demand for a trial by jury"; there was no caption, and no other part of ... ...
-
State v. Bell
...of OCGA § 17-7-171 so long as it constitutes a demand to be tried within the next two succeeding terms of court. See Forbus v. State, 250 Ga. 24, 295 S.E.2d 530 (1982) (approving Court of Appeals' construction of OCGA § 17-7-170 in State v. Adamczyk, 162 Ga.App. 288, 289, 290 S.E.2d 149 The......
-
Smith v. State, 66858
...Ann. § 27-1901) were specifically overruled in State v. Adamczyk, 162 Ga.App. 288, 290 S.E.2d 149 (1982). See also Forbus v. State, 250 Ga. 24, 295 S.E.2d 530 (1982). "The court has for some time been unduly liberal in its construction of what constitutes a valid demand for trial sufficient......
-
Cato Oil and Grease Co. v. Lewis, 38901
... ... it is error to grant a motion for a default judgment prior to ruling on a timely, pending motion, whether a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or motion for summary judgment. Williams v. Coca-Cola Co., 158 Ga.App. 139, 279 S.E.2d 261 (1981); Bigley, supra; Hopkins v. Harris, 130 ... ...