Merritt v. State
| Decision Date | 16 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 67499,67499 |
| Citation | 169 Ga.App. 523,313 S.E.2d 780 |
| Parties | MERRITT v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Charles R. Reddick, Homerville, for appellant.
Harry D. Dixon, Jr., Dist. Atty., and Richard E. Currie, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Eddie Merritt has been indicted for murder and burglary. After indictment but before a commitment hearing, he moved for pretrial bail. At that hearing, several witnesses testified that Merritt was of good character, that they did not believe he would attempt to abscond nor intimidate witnesses. Moreover, each indicated they would be willing to assign their real estate interests as security for Merritt's bond.
It was shown by the state that the state was asking for the death penalty and that two witnesses to be called by the state were the only eyewitnesses to the alleged crime. Although Merritt left the scene of the homicide, he subsequently surrendered himself upon learning the police were looking for him. However at that time, he was not aware that the state would be seeking the death penalty. The trial court at the conclusion of the hearing on bail made findings that because the state is seeking the death penalty, there is a substantial risk that Merritt might flee the jurisdiction. The court further concluded that there was a substantial risk that Merritt might seek to intimidate either one or both of the eyewitnesses to the crime. On those two bases, the trial court denied pretrial bail. Merritt brings this appeal seeking a review of the trial court's order. Held:
The denial of bond under such circumstances is an appealable order to this court. OCGA § 17-6-1(c) (Code Ann. § 27-901); Foster v. State, 165 Ga.App. 137, 299 S.E.2d 420.
In considering the granting or denial of pretrial bail, the trial court is required to consider numerous factors among which are the seriousness of the offense, the penalty of the offense, probability of the defendant to serve sentence, the likelihood of a great temptation to influence or intimidate adverse witnesses, and similar factors. Jones v. Grimes, 219 Ga. 585, 134 S.E.2d 790. The granting or refusal of bail in capital cases is a matter peculiarly within the discretion of the judge of the superior court, and will not be controlled, unless it has been manifestly and flagrantly abused. Lane v. State, 247 Ga. 387, 388, 276 S.E.2d 644. To assist an appellate court in determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cowart v. Ga. Power Co.
... ... , but on the contrary the jurisdiction of a court in no way depends on the sufficiency or insufficiency of the pleadings, and if the pleadings state a case belonging to a general class over which the authority of the court extends, then jurisdiction attaches and the court has power to hear and ... ...
-
Hammer Clinic P.C. v. Crawley
... ... state a claim upon which relief can be granted, are matters in abatement that are not within the scope of the summary judgment procedure, as a motion for ... ...
-
Stirling v. State
...v. State, 182 Ga.App. 247 (8), 355 S.E.2d 682 (1987); Mosley v. State, 171 Ga.App. 219(3), 319 S.E.2d 77 (1984); Merritt v. State, 169 Ga.App. 523, 313 S.E.2d 780 (1984). JUDGMENT McMURRAY, P.J., and BENHAM, J., concur. ...
-
Howard v. State
...of bail in such circumstances was directly appealable. See Foster v. State, 165 Ga.App. 137, 299 S.E.2d 420. Accord Merritt v. State, 169 Ga.App. 523, 524, 313 S.E.2d 780. Effective July 1, 1988, however, the language allowing for a direct appeal in such circumstances was deleted from the a......