Jordan v. State
| Decision Date | 12 February 1904 |
| Citation | 46 S.E. 679,119 Ga. 443 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | JORDAN. v. STATE. |
BURGLARY—EVIDENCE, —IDENTITY—JUROR— QUALIFICATIONS—NEW TRIAL —CHALLENGE.
1. On a trial in December, 1903, there was testimony that "recently, during the first week in November, " the store of the witness was broken and entered and goods stolen. The evidence was sufficient to show that the burglary was committed within the statute of limitations.
2. The goods lost had no earmarks, but the coincidence of their correspondence in quantity, variety, and brand with those found in defendant's recent possession, with other evidence, was sufficient identification.
3. A juror having the general statutory qualifications may be specially incompetent to serve in a particular case because of relationship, expression of opinion, bias, or other defect propter affectum.
4. If the losing party was ignorant of the affection or bias of the otherwise competent juror, he may take advantage thereof by motion for new trial.
5. A juror wanting in the statutory qualifications of age or residence, or having other deficiency propter defectum, may yet be rendered specially competent by the failure of the parties to challenge.
6. Ineligibility because of prior service in the same court during the same year renders a juror incompetent propter defectum, and is ground for challenge, but not cause for the grant of a new trial.
7. The enforcement of the law prohibiting too frequent service on the jury is referred primarily to the judges, and incidentally to such action as may be taken by way of challenge by the parties.
8. The policy of preventing too frequent service is met by the counter policy not lightly to set aside a verdict; and, unless the statute ex-pressly so requires, a new trial cannot be granted because one ineligible under the act approved August 15, 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 83), served on the jury.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Bibb County; W. H. Felton, Jr., Judge.
George Jordan was convicted of burglary, and brings error. Affirmed.
Glawson & Fowler, for plaintiff in error.
Wm, Brunson, Sol. Gen., for the State.
LAMAR, J. 1. The time and place of the commission of a crime must always appear. While it is best to make specific proof of the date, yet that the offense was committed within the statute of limitations may be established by circumstantial or indirect evidence. What is sufficient must be determined by the special facts of each case. In Tipton v. State (Ga.) 46 S. E. 436, it is stated that, where a month is referred to, it will generally be understood to be of the current year, unless from the connection this appears to be impossible. And if this trial had taken place in January, 1904, it is evident that under the language used the jury must have understood that the transaction took place in November, 1903. So, where the trial took place in December, 1903, and the witness testified that "recently, during the first week in November, " his store had been broken and entered and the goods stolen, there was proof sufficient to establish that the offense was committed during the year 1903.
2. A number of boxes of White Knight and Capadura cigars, Virginia cheroots, and Violetta soap were stolen. Articles answering the description in kind and quantity of those lost were soon thereafter found in the possession of the defendant. His counsel contends that the merchandise was of a character which could have been obtained at many other stores, that it had no earmarks by which it could be identified, and that the evidence fails to show that it was the same as that lost. And certainly, if the defendant had been found in possession of White Knight cigars alone, without anything further to connect them with those lost, the state's case would not have been made out But having in possession White Knight and Capadura cigars in quantities corresponding to those stolen, and beyond the amount usually kept by one not a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Marren
... ... given false answers, and such formation of opinion was ... unknown to the party at the time, a new trial will be ... granted. (Wharton Crim. Proc., sec. 844; State v ... Wright, 112 Iowa 436, 84 N.W. 541; Jeffries v ... State, 74 Miss. 675, 21 So. 526; Jordan v ... State, 119 Ga. 443, [17 Idaho 770] 46 S.E. 679; ... State v. Giron, 52 La. Ann. 491, 26 So. 985; ... Fitzgerald v. People, 1 Colo. 56; Troxdale v ... State, 28 Tenn. 411; Chartz v. Territory (Ariz.), 32 P ... The ... reason for the rule is particularly strong when the ... ...
-
Fudge v. State
...v. Snead, 122 Ga. 28(3), 49 S.E. 747), it would not be cause for a new trial unless discovered and urged before verdict. Jordan v. State, 119 Ga. 443, 46 S.E. 679; Taylor v. Warren, 175 Ga. 800(3), 166 S.E. Wright v. Davis, 184 Ga. 846, 851, 193 S.E. 757; Jones v. State, 148 Ga. 582(3), 97 ......
-
Fudge v. State, 13144.
...v. Snead, 122 Ga. 28(3), 49 S.E. 747), it would not be cause for a new trial unless discovered and urged before verdict. Jordan v. State, 119 Ga. 443, 46 S.E. 679; Taylor v. Warren, 175 Ga. 800 (3), 166 S.E. 225; Wright v. Davis, 184 Ga. 846, 851, 193 S.E. 757; Jones v. State, 148 Ga. 582(3......
-
Gordon v. Gulf Am. Fire & Cas. Co.
...know the brand names or serial numbers of the objects.' Richardson v. State, 113 Ga.App. 163(4), 147 S.E.2d 653. And see Jordan v. State, 119 Ga. 443(2), 46 S.E. 679. Certainly there is no greater requirement of identification in a civil case than in criminal cases. A finding that the autom......