Parker v. State
| Decision Date | 21 May 1888 |
| Citation | 81 Ga. 332,6 S.E. 600 |
| Parties | Parker v. State. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
On an indictment for carrying concealed weapons, a new trial will not be granted on the ground that defendant did not have time to prepare his defense, where he was allowed one hour after the case was called, and no further time was asked, nor reason assigned why he was not ready.
A new trial will not be granted on a conviction for carrying concealed weapons, on the ground of newly-discovered evidence, where such evidence is for the purpose of impeaching the state's witnesses.1
It is not ground for setting aside a verdict, in a trial for carrying a concealed weapon, that one of the jurors, when polled, stated that he agreed to the verdict reluctantly.
On a trial for carrying a concealed weapon a motion for a continuance was properly refused, where it was made for the purpose of securing a witness to prove that defendant, at a different time from that alleged in the indictment, did not have a pistol concealed about his person.
Error from superior court, Rockdale county; Boynton, Judge.
George W. Gleaton and A. C. Perry, for plaintiff in error.
E. Womack, Sol. Gen., for the State.
Simmons, J. Parker was indicted in Rockdale superior court for carrying concealed weapons on November 1, 1886. The indictment was found at the August term, 1887, of that court. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. He made a motion for a new trial, which was overruled by the court, and he excepted. The first, second, and third grounds are the usual ones, that the verdict was contrary to law and to the evidence, etc. The fourth and eighth grounds relate to newly-discovered evidence. The fifth and seventh grounds complain of the want of time on the part of the defendant to prepare his case for trial. The sixth ground is that one of the jurors agreed to the verdict reluctantly. The ninth ground is that the court refused to grant the defendant a continuance to allow him to subpoena a witness by whom he expected to show that he did not have a pistol concealed. We have read this record carefully, and are satisfied that there is no merit in any of the grounds of the motion for a new trial.
1. The evidence abundantly sustains the finding of the jury.
2. Complaint is made that the court did not grant sufficient time to properly prepare for the defense of the case. That was a matter within the discretion of the court. No reason seems to have been assigned to the court why the defendant was not properly prepared to go into the trial of the case. The court allowed him one hour after the case was called; and the record does not disclose that further time was asked for by the defendant. The law of the case is simple.
3. The motion to continue because he was not prepared was simply to have one witness subpoenaed, by whom he expected to prove that at a certain time he did not have a pistol concealed about his person. The solicitor general admitted that, if the witness were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Benefield v. State
...misplaced. See also in that context Rouse, supra; Hanson v. State, 258 Ga. 564(4), 372 S.E.2d 436 (1988); Young, supra; Parker v. State, 81 Ga. 332(5), 6 S.E. 600 (1888). "In criminal cases the privilege of polling a jury is the legal right of the defendant, and does not depend upon the dis......
-
Young v. State
...verdict was his in the jury room and still his upon being polled. Person v. State, 235 Ga. 814, 221 S.E.2d 587 (1976); Parker v. State, 81 Ga. 332, 6 S.E. 600 (1888); Hill v. State, 64 Ga. 453 All of the jurors, including this one, concurred in the imposition of the death penalty, making a ......
- State v. Parker
-
State v. Heaps
...or willingness with which a juror's mind assents to the verdict. Its only inquiry is, does [the juror] agree to it?" Parker v. State, 81 Ga. 332, 6 S.E. 600, 601 (1888); see also Young v. State, 239 Ga. 53, 236 S.E.2d 1, 5 (1977)(stating that juror's "indication of `reservations' does not p......