Lovett v. State, Nos. 41168
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
| Writing for the Court | EBERHARDT; NICHOLS, P. J., and PANNELL |
| Citation | 111 Ga.App. 295,141 S.E.2d 595 |
| Parties | Cleveland LOVETT v. The STATE (two cases) |
| Decision Date | 10 March 1965 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 41168,No. 2,41169 |
Page 595
v.
The STATE (two cases).
Page 596
[111 Ga.App. 296] Cleveland (Baby) Lovett was charged with possessing non-tax paid liquor, transporting non-tax paid liquor, speeding and failing to stop when told to do so by the arresting officers. He filed his general demurrer attacking the affidavit and warrant. In both he was charged only with 'the offense of misdemeanor' on a named date The demurrer was overruled and exception taken.
Limerick L. Odom, Savannah, for plaintiff in error.
Harry H. Hunter, Sol., Sylvania, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
[111 Ga.App. 295] EBERHARDT, Judge.
Prior to 1962, the Code sections dealing with the form and contents of affidavits and warrants provided that a substantial compliance with their provisions would be sufficient. See former Code §§ 27-104, 27-105. A case on all fours with the present case, decided under these former Code sections, held the demurrer properly overruled. Williams v. State, 107 Ga. 693(1), 33 S.E. 641.
Then the General Assembly acted with the passage of Ga.L.1962, p. 668 (Code Ann. §§ 27-103.1, 27-104, 27-105) and the repeal of the former law. The new statutes required further information in affidavits and warrants (Code Ann. § 27-103.1). The language 'substantial compliance' was omitted. 1 Furthermore,[111 Ga.App. 296] while the language of the forms remained the same, where a blank for setting out the offense formerly appeared the legislature now specified, in bold face type: '(insert here all information describing offense as required by Code section 27-103 and Code section 27-103.1)' We believe the obvious intent of the legislature in making these changes was to insist that affidavits and warrants comply with the statutory standard of required information.
Thus, the General Assembly has eliminated the statutory basis for the decisions in Williams v. State, 107 Ga. 693(1), 33 S.E. 641 supra, Dickson v. State, 62 Ga. 583, Kumpe v. Hall, 167 Ga. 284, 145 S.E. 509, Cain v. Kendrick, 199 Ga. 147, 33 S.E.2d 417 and cases of similar import. They are no longer controlling.
'The rule that penal laws are to be construed strictly is perhaps not much less old than construction itself. It is founded on the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals; and on the plain principle that the power of punishment is vested in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Highway Dept. v. Smith, Nos. 41051
...STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT v. Jestie V. BOWEN et al. Nos. 41051, 41052. Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 3. March 10, 1965. [111 Ga.App. 295] Page 591 Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Richard L. Chambers, Asst. Atty. Gen., James H. Wood, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Sam Whitmire, J. Roy Mills,......
-
Courtenay v. Randolph, Nos. 46604
...that this defect voids both warrants. She relies upon the cases of [125 Ga.App. 582] Lowe v. Turner, supra, and Lovett v. State, 111 Ga.App. 295, 141 S.E.2d 595. Neither case holds that the failure to state the time of commission of the crime in the affidavit, standing alone, will cause an ......
-
Lowe v. Turner, No. 42617
...used and, hence, require compliance of affidavits and warrants with the statutory standard of required information. Lovett v. State, 111 Ga.App. 295, 141 S.E.2d 595. § 27-103 (Ga.L.1865-6, p. 235) requires the statement of the offense, the county in which the same was committed and the time......
-
Faulkner v. State, No. 55618
...affidavit in addition to that information required by section 27-103. Thus, Judge Eberhardt, writing for this court in Lovett v. State, 111 Ga.App. 295, 141 S.E.2d 595 (1965) concluded that with the passage of the 1962 Act the statutory basis for the [146 Ga.App. 606] Williams decision was ......
-
State Highway Dept. v. Smith, Nos. 41051
...STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT v. Jestie V. BOWEN et al. Nos. 41051, 41052. Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 3. March 10, 1965. [111 Ga.App. 295] Page 591 Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Richard L. Chambers, Asst. Atty. Gen., James H. Wood, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Sam Whitmire, J. Roy Mills,......
-
Courtenay v. Randolph, Nos. 46604
...that this defect voids both warrants. She relies upon the cases of [125 Ga.App. 582] Lowe v. Turner, supra, and Lovett v. State, 111 Ga.App. 295, 141 S.E.2d 595. Neither case holds that the failure to state the time of commission of the crime in the affidavit, standing alone, will cause an ......
-
Lowe v. Turner, No. 42617
...used and, hence, require compliance of affidavits and warrants with the statutory standard of required information. Lovett v. State, 111 Ga.App. 295, 141 S.E.2d 595. § 27-103 (Ga.L.1865-6, p. 235) requires the statement of the offense, the county in which the same was committed and the time......
-
Faulkner v. State, No. 55618
...affidavit in addition to that information required by section 27-103. Thus, Judge Eberhardt, writing for this court in Lovett v. State, 111 Ga.App. 295, 141 S.E.2d 595 (1965) concluded that with the passage of the 1962 Act the statutory basis for the [146 Ga.App. 606] Williams decision was ......