Little v. The State Of Ga.
| Decision Date | 31 January 1875 |
| Citation | 54 Ga. 24 |
| Parties | A. M. Little et al, plaintiffs in error. v. The State of Georgia,defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Criminal law. Demand for trial. Before Judge Clark. Sumter Superior Court. November Term, 1874.
For the facts, see the decision.
C. T. Goode; Guerry & Son, for plaintiff in error.
C. F. Crisp, solicitor general, by brief, for the state.
The defendants were indicted for simple larceny. Previous to the term of court at which the trial was had, the defendants had demanded a trial, which demand was entered on the minutes of the court. At the next term, the defendants were put upon their trial, but the jury failed to agree *upon a verdict, and a mistrial was ordered by the court, without the consent of defendants. They then made a motion to be discharged, which motion the court refused, and the defendants excepted. It appears in the record that the jury werecharged with the case in the afternoon of one day, and remained out until ten o\'clock the next day, and failing to agree on a verdict a mistrial was ordered by the court. The motion to discharge the defendants was properly overruled. The court could have put the defendants on their trial before another jury at the same term of the court, as a trial had been demanded under the statute at that term, and we suppose, proposed to do so, inasmuch as the defendants continued the case on their own motion. The record does not show that the defendants were prevented by the court from having a trial at that term. The fact the court ordered a mistrial without the consent of defendants, under the circumstances stated in the record, did not entitle them to be discharged.
Let the judgment of the court below be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Orvis v. State
...103 Ga.App. 184, 118 S.E.2d 749 (1961), at least where the defendant could have been retried before the expiration of the term, Little v. State, 54 Ga. 24 (1875), it becomes necessary to determine whether the offense of armed robbery for which the death penalty is not sought is a 'capital o......
-
State v. Varner, S03A0936.
...a trial that satisfies the State's obligation under the demand for trial statutes. Geiger v. State, 25 Ga. 667, 668 (1858).2 In Little v. State, 54 Ga. 24 (1875), this Court concluded that discharge and acquittal was not mandated by a mistrial due to a hung jury if the defendant could be re......
-
State v. Allen, 64806
...refusing his discharge. 'The court could have put the defendant on trial before another jury at the same term of the court.' Little v. State, 54 Ga. 24, 25 [ (1875) ]; Collins v. Smith, [7 Ga.App. 653 (67 S.E. 847) (1910) ]." Mager v. State, 21 Ga.App. 139(2), 94 S.E. 82 (1917). Cf. Orvis v......
-
Brown v. State
...question decided. Consequently, there is no occasion now to construe and reconcile the cases of Geiger v. State, 25 Ga. 667, and Little v. State, 54 Ga. 24. We, however, do not see why, as a reason for declaring a mistrial, a persistent disagreement of the jury up to the moment when the ter......