Golden v. State

• Decision Date: 20 October 1933
• Docket Number: 23589.
• Citation: 171 S.E. 387,47 Ga.App. 746
• Parties: GOLDEN v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

171 S.E. 387

47 Ga.App. 746

GOLDEN v. STATE.

No. 23589.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, First Division

October 20, 1933

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Trial judge must inform himself as to truth of averments supporting application for change of venue on ground that impartial jury cannot be obtained.

Trial court's discretion in ruling on application for change of venue on ground that impartial jury cannot be obtained is conclusive, unless manifestly abused.

Refusing change of venue, on ground that impartial jury could not be obtained, held not abuse of discretion notwithstanding county jury box contained only 386 names and trial in question and companion trials inspired widespread public interest and large attendance, where more than 150 jurors in box were never summoned.

Trial court's refusal of change of venue on conflicting evidence as to whether fair trial might be obtained held conclusive.

Error from Superior Court, Taliaferro County; C.J. Perryman, Judge.

F. A Golden brings error.

Affirmed.

J. A Beazley, of Crawfordville, and Clement E. Sutton, of Washington, Ga., for plaintiff in error.

C. S. Baldwin, Jr., Sol. Gen., of Madison, for the State.

Syllabus OPINION.

GUERRY Judge.

1. "In the determination of whether the venue of a criminal case shall be changed for the reason that the condition of the public mind is such that the accused cannot obtain a fair trial by an impartial jury, the law imposes upon a trial judge the responsibility of making an examination and informing himself of the truth of the averments upon which the application is made, and the Supreme Court has no power to control his discretion in such a matter unless it has been plainly and manifestly abused." Rawlins v. State, 124 Ga. 31, 52 S.E. 1. The record does not disclose any such abuse in the present case.

2. The fact that this and companion cases were tried in a county containing only 386 names in the jury box, and that the trials created widespread public interest and large attendance, does not indicate an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in refusing the motion for a change of venue; it also appearing that there were more than 150 jurors in the box who were never summoned. The evidence as to whether or not a fair trial might be obtained being in conflict, this court will not interfere with the discretion vested in the trial judge. Grenoble v. State, 41 Ga.App. 663, 15 S.E. 304, and cases...