Parris v. State
| Decision Date | 03 July 1906 |
| Citation | 54 S.E. 751,125 Ga. 777 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | PARRIS. v. STATE. |
A juror incompetent propter defectum is made specially competent by the act of the parties in allowing him to serve without challenge, and a verdict will not be set aside for such cause. Jordan v. State, 46 S. E. 679, 119 Ga. 443.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 31, Cent Dig. Jury, §§ 504-514.]
The provisions of Pen. Code 1895, § 811, declaring that certain county officers shall be incompetent to serve as grand jurors during their respective terms of office, create a disqualification propter defectum.
A grand juror disqualified propter defectum must be challenged by the accused before the finding of the indictment, unless it appears that he did not have full notice or opportunity to make the challenge at that time. Folds v. State, 51 S. E. 305, 123 Ga. 167, (2).
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 24, Cent. Dig. Grand Jury, § 51.]
When the accused seeks, after the finding of the indictment, to raise the objection that one of the grand jurors was disqualified propter defectum, it is incumbent upon him to show that he did not have an opportunity to raise the objection before the indictment was found. Lascelles v. State, 16 S. E. 945, 90 Ga. 372, 35 Am. St. Rep. 216 (3); Edwards v. State, 49 S. E. 674, 121 Ga. 591 (2); Simpson v. State, 34 S. E. 204, 110 Ga. 249.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 24, Cent. Dig. Grand Jury, § 55.]
When the accused has been arrested upon a warrant charging him with an offense, and has been committed to await the action of the grand jury, or has given bond for his appearance, he is apprised of the fact that his case will undergo investigation, and it is incumbent upon him to raise objections to the competency of the grand jurors before they find an indictment against him. Turner v. State, 78 Ga. 174 (1); Fisher v. State, 20 S. E. 329, 93 Ga. 309 (1).
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 24, Cent. Dig. Grand Jury, § 51.]
(Syllabus by the Court)
Error from Superior Court, Chattooga County; Moses Wright, Judge.
Bruce Parris was convicted of crime, and brings error. Affirmed.
C. D. Rivers, for plaintiff in error.
W. H. Ennis, Sol. Gen., for the State.
COBB, P. J. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except FISH, C. J., absent.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. State
...for such cause." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Vaughn v. State, 173 Ga.App. 716, 718, 327 S.E.2d 747 ( 1985); Parris v. State, 125 Ga. 777(1), 54 S.E. 751 (1906). Further, under the testimony given at the motion for new trial hearing,1 we find no error in the trial court's finding th......
-
Gunn v. State, 35567
...Mydell v. State, 238 Ga. 450, 233 S.E.2d 199 (1977), cert. den. 431 U.S. 970, 97 S.Ct. 2933, 53 L.Ed.2d 1068 (1977); Parris v. State, 125 Ga. 777, 54 S.E. 751 (1906). As for the second challenge, the record shows that the juror pled guilty in federal court to violation of 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 560......
-
Evans v. State
...court." Turner v. State, 78 Ga. 174. See, also, Lascelles v. State, 90 Ga. 347(3), 372, 16 S. E. 945, 35 Am. St Rep. 216; Parris v. State, 125 Ga. 777(4), 54 S. E. 751; Tucker v. State, 135 Ga. 79, 68 S. E. 786; Brooks v. State, 12 Ga. App. 105, 76 S. E. 765. When, however, the grand jurors......
-
Daniel v. State
...time of the trial, being propter defectum, comes too late after verdict. Manning v. State, 11 Ga. App.—, 76 S. E. 70; Parris v. State, 125 Ga. 777, 54 S. E. 751. [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Jury, Cent. Dig. §§ 502-513, 515-523; Dec. Dig. § 110.*] 7. Criminal Law (§ 923*)—New Trial—Irreg......