Hopper v. Hampton
| Decision Date | 26 September 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 35177,35177 |
| Citation | 244 Ga. 361,260 S.E.2d 73 |
| Parties | HOPPER v. HAMPTON. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., G. Stephen Parker, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Thomas J. Killeen, Athens, for appellee.
Al W. Hampton was tried and convicted for burglary and aggravated assault, and sentenced to serve 15 years and 12 months concurrently, respectively. He filed a petition for habeas corpus alleging that the burglary indictment was fatally defective in failing to allege specifically the felony, he "without authority, and With intent to commit a felony therein, entered the dwelling house . . ." to commit. The habeas court granted his petition and the state, through the warden, appeals. We reverse.
Hampton relies on State v. Lockhart, 24 Ga. 420 (1858), and Ealey v. State, 136 Ga.App. 292, 221 S.E.2d 50 (1975), holding that such specificity is necessary. Neither case, however, is a habeas corpus case. In Lockhart, supra, the challenge to the indictment was made by the guarantor on the defendant's appearance bond and in Ealey, supra, on direct appeal. These facts distinguish these cases.
The general rule is that substantive defects, such as the indictment fails to allege conduct which constitutes a crime, are cognizable on habeas corpus because the entire proceedings were void ab initio. E. g. McCain v. Smith, 221 Ga. 353, 144 S.E.2d 522 (1965). Where, on the other hand, the defect is merely one of form, the defect is waived if not raised prior to trial. E. g. Hopper v. Kemp, 236 Ga. 615, 225 S.E.2d 15 (1976) (); Tolever v. Smith, 224 Ga. 270, 161 S.E.2d 266 (1968) (). We find that the requirement that the felony be specified falls in the latter category.
As long as the defendant is informed of the charges against him so that he may present his defense at trial and not be surprised by the evidence against him, as well as protect against another prosecution for the same offense, the indictment is sufficient. Byers v. State, 236 Ga. 599, 225 S.E.2d 26 (1976); Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1934). We find these criteria are met here and hold the indictment sufficient. The habeas court erred in ruling otherwise.
Judgment reversed.
All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chappell v. State
...double jeopardy if tried for a similar offense in the future. See McKisic v. State, 238 Ga. 644, 645, 234 S.E.2d 908; Hopper v. Hampton, 244 Ga. 361, 362, 260 S.E.2d 73. "The true test of the sufficiency of an indictment is not whether it could have been made more definite and certain, but ......
-
State v. Leach
...State v. Gasnik, 10 Ohio Misc.2d 23, 461 N.E.2d 333 (1983); Williams v. State, 302 Md. 787, 490 A.2d 1277 (1985); Hopper v. Hampton, 244 Ga. 361, 260 S.E.2d 73 (1979); State v. Blais, 391 A.2d 1198 (Me.1978); but see People v. Gilmore, 63 Ill.2d 23, 344 N.E.2d 456 (1976) (failure to charge ......
-
Henderson v. Hames
...v. Hardrick, 266 Ga. 54, 56, 464 S.E.2d 198 (1995) (affirming grant of habeas relief because indictment was void); Hopper v. Hampton, 244 Ga. 361, 361, 260 S.E.2d 73 (1979) (“The general rule is that substantive defects, such as the indictment fails to allege conduct which constitutes a cri......
-
LIVERY v. State
...evidence against him, as well as protect against prosecution for the same offense, the indictment is sufficient. Hopper v. Hampton, 244 Ga. 361, 362, 260 S.E.2d 73 (1979)." (Punctuation omitted.) Carter v. State, 155 Ga.App. 49, 50, 270 S.E.2d 233 (1980); see also Berger v. United States, 2......