Parris v. State

Decision Date03 July 1906
Citation54 S.E. 751,125 Ga. 777
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court
PartiesPARRIS. v. STATE.
1. Jury — Competency — Failure to Challenge—Waiver of Defects.

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.]

2. Grand Jury — Qualifications — County

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.

3. Same—Challenges—Time for Making.

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.]

4. Same.

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.]

5. Same.

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
9 cases
  • Rogers v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 28 Noviembre 2000
    ...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
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 4 Marzo 1980
    ...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
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 18 Septiembre 1915
    ...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
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 12 Noviembre 1912
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT