Norman v. State

• Decision Date: 09 December 1930
• Docket Number: No. 7984.,7984.
• Citation: Norman v. State, 171 Ga. 527, 156 S.E. 203 (Ga. 1930)
• Parties: NORMAN. v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

171 Ga. 527

156 S.E. 203

NORMAN.

v.STATE.

No. 7984.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Dec. 9, 1930.

Syllabus by the Court.

The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to decide questions of law that involve the application, in a general sense, of unquestioned and unambiguous provisions of the Constitution to a given state of facts, and that do not involve construction of some constitutional provision directly in question or doubtful either under its own terms or the decisions of this court or of the Supreme Court of the United States, and that do not involve the constitutional-ity of any law of the state, or of the United States, or any treaty.

Syllabus by the Court.

Due process of law means the administration of general laws according to established rules, not violative of the fundamental principles of private right, by a competent tribunal having jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and proceeding upon notice and hearing.

Syllabus by the Court.

A state cannot be deemed guilty of a violation of the due process clause of its Constitution, or of the due process clause of the Federal Constitution, simply because one of its courts, while acting within its jurisdiction, has made erroneous rulings or decisions.In such a casea party is left to the appropriate remedies for the correction of errors in judicial proceedings.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; Virlyn B. Moore, Judge.

T. J. Norman was convicted for embezzlement, and he brings error.

Case transferred to Court of Appeals.

Paul S. Etheridge, Sam'l D. Hewlett, and T. F. Bowden, all of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

John A. Boykin, Sol.Gen., J. W. Le Craw, and John H. Hudson, all of Atlanta, for the State.

HINES, J.

Norman was indicted for embezzlement of the moneys, funds securities, and credits of the Colonial Trust Company, a banking corporation under the laws of this state.He demurred to the indictment upon thirty-five grounds, which were overruled by the trial judge.To this judgment he excepted pendente lite, and assigned error thereon in the bill of exceptions in this case.No constitutional questions are raised by any of his grounds of demurrer.He was convicted, and moved for a new trial upon thirty-five grounds, of which the general grounds constitute three.In the other grounds it is contended that the court erred in not withdrawing from the consideration of the jury certain transactions, in giving to the jury certain instructions, in failing to give to the jury certain instructions, in admitting certain evidence to the jury over the objection of counsel for the defendant, and in submitting to the jury various transactions, and the return by the jury of a general verdict of guilty, without stating upon which of said transactions the defendant was found guilty, which, as he contends, deprived him of his liberty without due process of law, and in violation of the due process clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions.

No constitutional questions are raised in any of the grounds of the motion for new trial, unless they were raised by the matters which we now state.In assigning errors upon the rulings and other matters in the grounds of his motion for new trial, from 4 to 35. inclusive, the defendant alleges that the matters therein dealt with deprived him of his liberty in violation of the due process clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions.If this contention of the defendant is unsound, this court is without jurisdiction to pass upon and decide the issues raised by the bill of exceptions.The only ground upon which we would have jurisdiction, under the facts of this case, is that a constitutional question or questions are involved in the record.Are any such question or questions raised by the record?This court has jurisdiction "in all cases that involve the construction of' the Constitution of the State of Georgia or of the United States, or of treaties between the United States and foreign governments"; and "in all cases in which the constitutionality of any la"w of the State of Georgia or of the United States is drawn in question."Ga. Laws 1010. p. 19;10 Park's CodeSupp. 1922, § 6502.Does this case involve the construction of any part of the Constitution of this state or of the United States; or...