Johnson v. State

• Decision Date: 22 January 1923
• Docket Number: 3237.
• Citation: 115 S.E. 642,154 Ga. 806
• Parties: JOHNSON v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

115 S.E. 642

154 Ga. 806

JOHNSON v. STATE.

No. 3237.

Supreme Court of Georgia

January 22, 1923

Syllabus by the Court.

The ruling of the Court of Appeals in Powell v. State, 25 Ga.App. 329 (5), 103 S.E. 174, is correct.

Where a defendant is convicted of the offense of shooting at another and the jury fixes his sentence at three years, it is not error to overrule a motion to arrest the judgment on the ground that the verdict does not fix a maximum and minimum sentence. Giving to the verdict a reasonable intendment and construction (Civ. Code 1910, § 5927), it is equivalent to one fixing the maximum and minimum punishment at three years.

Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

If the verdict is one which the jury cannot legally render, or if it is so vague and uncertain that no legal judgment can be rendered thereon, a motion in arrest of judgment will lie.

Where a decision of the Court of Appeals that the jury could fix one term as both the maximum and minimum term has been followed by judges, and juries have acted upon it and fixed only one term, only the most imperative considerations should move the Supreme Court to overrule the decision.

Certified Questions from Court of Appeals.

Rob Johnson was convicted of shooting at another, and he brought error to the Court of Appeals, which certified questions to the Supreme Court. Questions answered.

M. L Harris, of Ringgold, for plaintiff in error.

Joe M. Lang, Sol. Gen., of Calhoun, for the State.

HINES J.

Act Aug. 18, 1919 (Ga. Laws 1919, p. 387), provides:

"That the jury in their verdict, on the trial of all cases of felony not punishable by life imprisonment, shall prescribe a minimum and a maximum term, which shall be within the minimum and maximum prescribed by law as the punishment for said crime."

Under this law, can the jury fix the same term of imprisonment as the minimum and maximum term? The statute does not declare that the minimum and maximum terms shall be different. All the statute requires is that the jury "shall prescribe a minimum and maximum term, which shall be within the minimum and maximum prescribed by law." There is no express provision in this statute which prohibits the jury from fixing the same term as the minimum and maximum term; and when the jury so fixes the minimum and maximum term, we do not see how it can be said that they have not complied with this law. We do not think it is sound to hold that this construction of the statute would make it impossible to carry out the other provisions of the law, one of which is that--

"The Prison Commission shall fix rules by which said convict, after serving the minimum sentence, may be allowed to complete his term without the confines of the penitentiary upon complying with said rules."

As there would be no uncompleted term under such a verdict, there would be no necessity for any rules in such a case; but in all cases where the minimum and maximum terms are different, the Prison Commission is to make rules governing the completion by the convict of his term outside of the confines of the penitentiary.

What defects will support a motion to set aside a judgment in a criminal case?

"The motion in arrest is narrow and restricted in its province, and attacks conclusions reached by court or jury solely on the ground of illegality in form or substance, or because based upon insufficient

...