Johnson v. The State Of Ga.
| Decision Date | 31 January 1877 |
| Parties | Julius Johnson, plaintiff in err0r. v. The State of Georgia, defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Criminal Law. Continuance. Jury. Practice in the Superior Court. Before Judge Crawford. Muscogee Superior
Court. May Term, 1876.
*Reported in the opinion.
Thornton & Williams, for plaintiff in error.
W. A. Little, solicitor general, for the State.
The defendant was indicted for stealing a cow, and convicted of that crime. He moved for a new trial on three grounds; the motion was denied, and he excepted.
1. The first ground was, that two witnesses were absent, and he moved to continue the case, and the court refused it. He had continued before for the absence of these two witnesses; they had gone to Alabama, beyond the jurisdiction of the court, and the court declined to grant another continuance. We shall not interfere with the discretion of the court in this matter, but hold that the judge did right—certainly he did not abuse his discretion.
2. The second error assigned is, that the court permitted the solicitor general, after a juror was put upon the prisoner, but before he was sworn, to inquire if the juror was naturalized, the information that the juror had never been naturalized having that moment come to the knowledge of the solicitor, and that the court then excused the juror for cause. Again, we hold that the judge did right. The point was settled in 3 Kelly, 453, and the law to the same effect will be found re-enacted in the Code, § 4681.
3. The third and only remaining ground insisted upon here is, that the court charged the jury as follows: "if you should find him guilty, you may inquire what were the circumstances under which he stole this colored man's cow, and brought her to town to sell her. Were they such as to justify you in recommending him to the mercy of the court? What mitigating circumstances, if he is guilty, are there to warrant you in recommending him to the mercy of the court? If any, he is entitled to their benefit.
If, in your judgment, he stole the cow, and there were any circumstances *connected with it such as to warrant you in recommending him to the mercy of the court, why then it would be your duty to do it; but if there be none to justify you in recommending him to the mercy of the court, why then you ought not to do it." This charge is assigned as error. This offense is cattle-stealing, and the punishment thereof is found in the Code, section 4399. It is confinement in the penitentiary from two to four years, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dupre v. State, (No. 3180.)
...of the opinion required the grant of a new trial. We will consider these cases in detail. We discuss, first, the case of Johnson v. State, 58 Ga. 491; it being argued that this case is older than any of the other cases and has never been overruled. By reference to the charge in that case it......
-
Dupre v. State
...division of the opinion required the grant of a new trial. We will consider these cases in detail. We discuss, first, the case of Johnson v. State, 58 Ga. 491; it being that this case is older than any of the other cases and has never been overruled. By reference to the charge in that case ......
-
Wyatt v. State, 22933
...DUCKWORTH, Chief Justice. None of the headnotes require elaboration except 4. By a long line of full bench decisions, including Johnson v. State, 58 Ga. 491; Hill v. State, 72 Ga. 131; Barfield v. State, 179 Ga. 293, 175 S.E.2d 582; and Jennings v. State, 212 Ga. 58, 90 S.E.2d 401 this cour......
-
Brawner v. State
...in case No. 23184. All the Justices concur, except QUILLIAN, J., who dissents. QUILLIAN, Justice (dissenting). Under authority of Johnson v. State, 58 Ga. 491, Hill v. State, 72 Ga. 131, Cohen v. State, 116 Ga. 573, 576, 42 S.E. 781, and Jennings v. State, 212 Ga. 58, 59, 90 S.E.2d 401, I a......