Mccook v. State

• Decision Date: 12 June 1893
• Citation: 17 S.E. 1019,91 Ga. 740
• Parties: McCOOK. v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

17 S.E. 1019

91 Ga. 740

McCOOK.

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

June 12, 1893.

Primary Elections — Illegal Voting—Title op Statute—Drunkenness as a Defense. 1. The sixth section of the act of October 21, 1891, "to protect primary elections, *** and to punish frauds committed thereat, " is not unconstitutional, as containing matter different from what is expressed in the title of the act. The section in question provides a penalty for voting more than once at a primary election, and such voting is certainly one of the "frauds" to which the title of the act refers.

2. Drunkenness is not an excuse for crime unless the same was occasioned by the fraud, artifice, or contrivance of another or others, for the purpose of having a crime perpetrated. Consequently, if one or more persons give whisky to another, "in a social way, and with no view or purpose at the time" to induce him to commit a crime, and afterwards, while he is so drunk that he knows not what he does, procure him to commit a crime, he would be legally responsible, and subject to conviction for the same.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from city court of Columbus; J. L. Willis, Judge.

Will McCook was convicted under the law making it a misdemeanor to vote more than once at a primary election. He brings error. Affirmed.

Thornton & McMichael, for plaintiff in error.

Sol. Y. Crawford, for the State.

LUMPKIN, J. 1. It was insisted that the act of October 21, 1S91, (Acts 1890-1891, vol.1, p. 210.) "to protect primary elections, *** and to punish frauds committed thereat, " is unconstitutional, in so far as it makes voting more than once at a primary election a misdemeanor, and provides a punishment fur the same, the point being that the matter just mentioned is different from what is expressed in the title of the act. The act expressly provides for the punishment of frauds at these elections. Indeed, that is its main purpose, and, if voting more than once is not a fraud, we are at a loss to conceive what would be one at a public election of any kind. The creation of this offense by the body of the act is within the very letter and spirit of the title, and there is obviously no merit in the objection presented.

2. It is the settled policy of our law that drunkenness shall not be an excuse for crime. The fact of drunkenness may sometimes be proved to explain motives or to illustrate intention, but in only one instance will it serve as an absolute excuse for the commission of an act which the law makes...