Humphries v. State
| Decision Date | 23 February 1897 |
| Citation | 28 S.E. 25,100 Ga. 260 |
| Parties | HUMPHRIES v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Following the decision of this court in Cody v. State (this term) 28 S.E. 106, an indictment for robbery, alleging the taking from the person of another of "five dollars in paper money, of the value of five dollars," sufficiently describes the property alleged to have been stolen.
2. It is no ground for a postponement or continuance of a felony case that some of the jurors constituting the panel put upon the accused had, at the same term, served in the trial of another person jointly indicted with the accused for the same offense. The proper method of objecting to such jurors would be by challenges to the polls, if they qualified upon their voir dire.
3. There was in the present case no evidence warranting an instruction explaining to the jury the difference between the probative value of positive and negative testimony, and the error committed in so doing is cause for a new trial.
Error from superior court, Bibb county; W. H. Felton, Jr., Judge.
Alonzo Humphries was convicted of robbery, and he brings error. Reversed.
Hope Polhill and Marion Harris, for plaintiff in error.
Robt. Hodges, Sol. Gen., for the State.
Humphries was indicted for the offense of robbery, the indictment alleging the taking from the person of another "of five dollars in paper money, of the value of five dollars." There was a demurrer to the indictment on the ground that the property alleged to have been taken was not sufficiently described. The accused was convicted, and, his motion for a new trial being overruled, excepted.
1. In the case of Cody v. State (this term) 28 S.E. 106, it was held that an indictment for larceny after trust, which described the property as "ninety dollars in paper money, of the value of ninety dollars, and two dollars in silver money, of the value of two dollars," was sufficient. Following this decision, the court was right in overruling the demurrer.
2. A motion for a postponement or continuance of a felony case on the ground that some of the jurors constituting the panel put upon the accused had, at the same term, served in the trial of another person jointly indicted with the accused for the same offense, is in the nature of a challenge to the array and, as has been repeatedly held, this is not the proper method of raising the question of the disqualification of individual jurors. Thomp. & M. Jur. § 128; Eberhart v State, 47 Ga. 606 (2). If the panel contained any jurors who were subject to challenge, the accused would have an opportunity, when they were put upon their voir dire, and qualified, to show the fact of such disqualification by putting the individual juror upon the court as a trior. It is possible that a challenge to the array would be overruled where the entire panel was composed of persons who would be subject to challenge to the pells; and, on the other hand, a panel made up of jurors not subject to any challenge to the polls might be set aside on a challenge to the array. A challenge to the array goes to the form and manner of making up the panel, without regard to the objections to the individual jurors which compose it while the challenge to the poll is directed solely to an objection which is inherent in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State Georgia
...of making up the entire panel, whereas challenges to the poll are directed solely to the individual juror. See Humphries v. Georgia, 1897, 100 Ga. 260, 262, 28 S.E. 25, 26; Mitchell v. Georgia, 1943, 69 Ga.App. 771, 776, 26 S.E.2d 663, 667. 17 210 Ga. 665, 668, 82 S.E.2d 217, 219. 18 Even i......
-
Carver v. State, s. A91A1881
...v. State, 98 Ga.App. 164, 165, 105 S.E.2d 506 (1958); Walls v. State, 83 Ga.App. 318, 324, 63 S.E.2d 437 (1951); Humphries v. State, 100 Ga. 260, 261-262, 28 S.E. 25 (1896); Jenkins v. State, 92 Ga. 459, 17 S.E. 966 (1893). "If the panel here objected to contained any jurors who were subjec......
-
Burns v. State
... ... The indictment here was sufficient so far as ... related to description of property, whether or not such ... description would be sufficient in an indictment for simple ... larceny. Powell v. State, 88 Ga. 32, 13 S.E. 829; ... Cody v. State, 100 Ga. 105(2), 28 S.E. 106; ... Humphries v. State, 100 Ga. 260, 28 S.E. 25; ... Melvin v. State, 120 Ga. 490, 491, 48 S.E. 198; ... Cannon v. State, 125 Ga. 785, 54 S.E. 692; ... McDonald v. State, 2 Ga.App. 633(3), 58 S.E. 1067 ... Nor was the indictment subject to demurrer for the reason ... that it valued the articles ... ...
-
Burns v. State
...an indictment for simple larceny. Powell v. State, 88 Ga. 32, 13 S.E. 829; Cody v. State, 100 Ga. 105(2), 28 S.E. 106; Humphries v. State, 100 Ga. 260, 28 S.E. 25; Mclvin v. State, 120 Ga. 490, 491, 48 S.E. 198; Cannon v. State, 125 Ga. 785, 54 S.E. 692; McDonald v. State, 2 Ga. App. 633(3)......