Ledford v. State

• Decision Date: 13 October 1885
• Citation: 75 Ga. 856
• Parties: LEDFORD v. THE STATE OF GEORGIA.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

75 Ga. 856

LEDFORD v. THE STATE OF GEORGIA.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

October 13, 1885

October Term, 1885.

1. A third cousin of the prosecutor in a criminal case is not a qualified juror; and the fact of the relationship being unknown to the defendant until after the trial, it furnished a good ground for a motion for new trial.

2. It will not prevent a new trial for the juror who was akin to the prosecutor to assert that he did not know of the relationship until after the trial.

3. Although the burden of establishing an alibi, as such, to the satisfaction of the jury, rested on the defendant, who set up alibi as a defence, and on that issue reasonable doubts would not avail him, yet, on the final issue of guilty or not guilty, all the evidence is for the consideration of the jury, and it is for them to say whether, from all of the evidence, the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And a charge which excluded all the evidence concerning the alibi from being weighed by the jury on the subject of reasonable doubts of defendant's guilt, on the issue of guilty or not guilty was error.

Criminal Law. Jury and Jurors. Alibi. Before Judge ESTES. White Superior Court. April Term, 1885.

Ledford with others, was indicted for riot, and on his trial was convicted. He moved for a new trial, on the following among other grounds:

(1.) Because the verdict was contrary to law and evidence.

(2.) Because the court charged as follows: " The defendant gentlemen, sets up the defence of alibi, which is a complete defence when made out. The word means elsewhere. Of course, if the defendant was not there, he could not be guilty. To establish the defence of an alibi, you must be satisfied from the evidence that it was physically impossible for the defendant to have been at the scene of the crime, if any was committed, at the time of the commission of the crime; and if you are not so satisfied, you will consider it no further."

(3.) Because one of the jurors was related to the prosecutrix in the second (?) degree, which was unknown to the party defendant until after the trial. [The affidavits of the defendant and his counsel were introduced to show want of knowledge. Another person made affidavit that the juror was a third cousin of the prosecutrix. The judge caused the juror to be examined on oath, and he stated that he did not know of the relationship until after the verdict.]

The motion was overruled, and the defendant excepted.

...