Nixon v. State
| Citation | 48 S.E. 966,121 Ga. 144 |
| Parties | NIXON v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 10 November 1904 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
INDICTMENT—SUFFICIENCY — CARRYING METAL KNUCKS —APPEAL—JURORS—CHALLENGE TO ARRAY.
1. It is not necessary that an indictment or presentment shall show upon its face the term at which it is found. It is sufficient if this fact appears upon the back of the indictment or presentment where the return of the grand jury is entered.
¶ 1. See Indictment and Information, vol. 27, Cent. Dig. §§ 105-107.
2. A special presentment, based upon the act approved December 20, 1898 (Acts 1898, p. 60), charging one with carrying about his person metal knucks, not in an open manner and fully exposed to view, need not allege that the knucks were "manufactured and sold for the purpose of offense and defense."
4. While the failure to swear a witness before a grand jury might be a sufficient reason for quashing an indictment or presentment founded in part upon the testimony of such witness, if a proper plea in abatement is filed, it is not a sufficient reason for acquitting the accused after issue joined.
5. It is not a good ground of challenge to the array that the panel of jurors embraces one or more disqualified jurors. Objection to such jurors should be raised by a challenge to the poll.
6. The evidence warranted the verdict, and there was no error requiring the granting of a new trial.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Douglas County; A. L. Bartlett, Judge.
Tom Nixon was convicted of carrying concealed weapons, and brings error. Affirmed.
The accused was convicted upon a presentment based upon the act approved December 20, 1898 (Acts 1898, p. 60), charging him with carrying metal knucks concealed about his person. He assigns error upon the refusal of the judge to grant him a new trial and upon other rulings made in the case.
J. S. James, for plaintiff in error.
W. K. Fielder, Sol. Gen., for the State.
COBB, J. 1. A demurrer was filed setting up that the presentment did not show upon its face at what term it was found. The return of the grand jury entered upon the back of the presentment showed that it was found at the May term, 1903. This was sufficient.
2. Another ground of the demurrer was that the presentment did not allege that the metal knucks were "manufactured for the purpose of offense and defense." This was not necessary. The words quoted appearing in the statute do not qualify any word except "knives."
3. After the jury had been sworn and the trial had begun, it was discovered that one of the jurors selected was a member of the grand jury that returned the presentment Upon motion of the accused a mistrial was declared, and the jury discharged. When put on trial before another jury the accused entered a plea of former jeopardy, which the court overruled. There was no error in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGarvey v. State, 75873
...the matter that resulted in the mistrial and cannot prevent retrial by withholding consent to the mistrial. Id., p. 22. See Nixon v. State, 121 Ga. 144(3),48 S.E. 966. In any case, under § 16-1-8(e)(2)(B), it hardly matters who precipitated the injustice that made it "impossible to proceed,......
-
Andrews v. State
...Ga. 433(2) [46 S. E. 677]; Harris v. State, 120 Ga. 169 [47 S. E. 520]; Robinson v. State, 120 Ga. 312 (2) P47 S. E. 968]; Nixon v. State, 121 Ga. 144 (3) [48 S. E. 966]." It will be observed that in Steed's Case and Caesar's Case, the ruling that the plaintiff in error would not be heard t......
-
Andrews v. State
...conduct has induced. Quattlebaum v. State, 119 Ga. 433 (2) ; Harris v. State, 120 Ga. 169 ; Robinson v. State, 120 Ga. 312 (2) ; Nixon v. State, 121 Ga. 144 (3) It will be observed that in Steed's Case and Caesar's Case, the ruling that the plaintiff in error would not be heard to complain ......
- Nixon v. State