Murphy v. State
| Decision Date | 10 November 1904 |
| Citation | 121 Ga. 142,48 S.E. 909 |
| Parties | MURPHY v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
CRIMINAL LAW—VENUE—EVIDENCE.
1. In a criminal case the venue of the crime must be established clearly and beyond a reasonable doubt
2. Former decisions of this court constrain a holding that the venue in this case was not sufficiently established.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court Fulton County; L. S. Roan, Judge.
James Murphy was convicted of crime, and brings error. Reversed.
James L. Key, for plaintiff in error.
C. D. Hill, Sol. Gen., for the State.
The controlling question in this case is whether the venue of the crime was sufficiently proved. The only direct testimony on the subject was that of a witness who testified that the crime was committed "in the city of Atlanta." In the trial of a criminal case the venue of the offense must be established clearly and beyond a reasonable doubt Gosha's Case, 56 Ga. 36. In Moye's Case, 65 Ga. 754, it was held that proof that the crime was committed "in the city of Americus" was not sufficient to establish the venue; and In Cooper's Case, 106 Ga, 119, 32 S. E. 23, it was held that proof that the crime was committed "in Lawrence-ville" did not establish the venue beyond a reasonable doubt See, also, Wooten's Case, 119 Ga. 745, 47 S. E 193. These cases are directly controlling, and constrain a ruling that the venue was not sufficiently proved. If the question were now open, we would rule to the contrary. See, in this connection, Knox v. State, 114 Ga. 272, 40 S. E. 233.
If the evidence had been that the crime was committed in Atlanta, Ga., the court would take judicial notice of the fact that Atlanta, Ga., is in Fulton county. The Solicitor General contended that there were circumstances sufficient to show the venue independently of any direct evidence on the subject While venue, like any other fact, may be proved by circumstantial evidence, a careful examination of the evidence in this case fails to disclose circumstances sufficient to authorize the jury to find that the crime was committed in the county alleged in the indictment.
We take this occasion to suggest the propriety of legislation declaring that neither the judge of the trial court nor this court shall be required to render a judgment, the effect of which is to grant a new trial in a criminal case because the venue was not sufficiently proved, unless it appears from the record that this question was distinctly made at the trial and before verdict.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Siepert
...... . . Venue,. like all other issuable facts in criminal cases, must be. proved beyond a reasonable doubt. (Davis v. State,. 134 Wis. 632, 115 N.W. 150; Gosha v. State, 56 Ga. 36; Green v. State, 4 Ga.App. 260, 61 S.E. 234;. Jones v. State, 113 Ga. 271, 38 S.E. 851; Murphy. v. State, 121 Ga. 142, 48 S.E. 909; Cooper v. State, 2 Ga.App. 730, 59 S.E. 20; Commonwealth v. Costley, 118 Mass. 1; State v. Keeland, 39. Mont. 506, 104 P. 513; People v. Manning, 48 Cal. 335; People v. Gleason, 1 Nev. 173; State v. Dickerson, 77 Ohio St. 34, 122 Am. St. 479, 11 Ann. Cas. ......
-
Davis v. State, 29294.
...883; Moye v. State, 65 Ga. 754; Cooper v. State, 106 Ga. 119(2), 32 S.E. 23; Wooten v. State, 119 Ga. 745, 47 S.E. 193; Murphy v. State, 121 Ga. 142, 48 S.E. 909; Smith v. State, 2 Ga. App. 413, 414, 58 S.E. 549; Stringfield v. State, 4 Ga. App. 842, 62 S.E. 569; Walker v. State, 30 Ga.App.......
-
State v. Rigby
...... 38 Idaho 20, 225 P. 135; State v. Cole, 31 Idaho. 603, 174 P. 131; State v. Keeland, 39 Mont. 506, 104. P. 513; State v. Ducolon, 60 Mont. 594, 201 P. 267;. People v. Kubulis, 298 Ill. 523, 131 N.E. 595;. People v. Jackzo, 206 Mich. 183, 172 N.W. 557;. Garst v. State, 68 Ind. 37; Murphy v. State, 121 Ga. 142, 48 S.E. 909; Thompkins v. State, 1 Ala. App. 258, 55 So. 267; Mill v. State, 1. Ga.App. 134, 57 S.E. 969.). . . A. H. Conner, Attorney General, and John W. Cramer, Assistant, for. Respondent. . . Proof. of venue may be either direct or indirect. ......
-
Witcher v. State, 33767
...venue. Moye v. State, supra. Proof that the crime was committed 'in the city of Atlanta' was not sufficient proof of venue. Murphy v. State, 121 Ga. 142, 48 S.E. 909. Nor that the crime was committed 'in Lawrenceville in front of Dan Rutledge's store' sufficient. Cooper v. State, 106 Ga. 11......