Roberts v. The State Of Ga.
| Decision Date | 31 August 1853 |
| Docket Number | No. 2.,2. |
| Citation | 14 Ga. 6 |
| Parties | Ezekiel A. Roberts, plaintiff in error. vs. The State of Georgia, defendant. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Indictment for Burglary, in Monroe Superior Court. Tried before Judge Stark, March Term, 1853.
The defendant in this case being arraigned, and having pleaded not guilty, moved for a continuance on the following grounds:
1st. That by reason of his close confinement in jail since hisarrest, (a space of five months) and his inability to employ counsel, he had been unable to prepare his defence.
2nd. That he had not known until the finding of the bill at the present term, for what offence he would be indicted.
3rd. That he desired to procure the testimony of certain persons residing in Ohio, to impeach the credibility of two witnesses, who he believed the State would introduce.
4th. Because the popular feeling in the county was so much excited against him, that he could not, at that term of the Court, obtain an impartial trial.
The motion for continuance was overruled, and the defendant tried and convicted.
Whereupon the defendant's counsel excepts, assigning as error the refusal of the Court to grant a continuance, on the grounds stated.
Lamar, Hammond & Lochrane, for plaintiff in error.
Glenn, representing Thrasher, Sol. Gen., for defendant.
By the Court.—Starnes, J., delivering the opinion.
The assignments of error in this case are based upon the refusal of the Court below of a motion for continuance; and for the reasons which we give, when considering the motion for continuance, in the case of Ezekiel A. Roberts and Gideon Copenhaven vs. The State, arising out of an indictment for robbery, decided at this term*, we think the judgment of the Court was correct in this case, and accordingly we affirm it.
[See Roberts v. State, 14 Ga. 8.]
CONTINUANCE. Applications are made to the sound discretion of the Court. Roberts v. State, 14 Ga. 8 (3).
"This Court will not Interfere with the judgment of the Circuit Judge in a matter left by law in his wise, legal discretion, unless it appears affirmatively that the discretion has been abused." Long v. State, 38 Ga. 491 (6), 507. And see 26 Ga. 393; 27 Ga. 411.
"Upon a showing for a continuance of an indictment for murder, one month and a half after the occurrence of the homicide (the prisoner having been painfully wounded by the deceased in the encounter), whether the excited state of the public mind is such as to prevent a fair and impartial trial, and also whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Curry v. State
...and flagrant before the lower court will be reversed. Sealy v. State, 1 Ga. 213, 44 Am.Dec. 641; Howell v. State, 5 Ga. 48; Roberts v. State, 14 Ga. 6; Revel v. State, 26 Ga. 276; Long v. 38 Ga. 491; Oglesby v. State, 121 Ga. 602, 49 S.E. 706; Rawlins v. State, 124 Ga. 31, 52 S.E. 1; Lyles ......
-
Wells alias Wilson v. State, 18443
...to stand trial, this court can not hold that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the motion for continuance. See Roberts v. State, 14 Ga. 6; Long v. State, 38 Ga. 491, 506; Edenfield v. State, 26 Ga.App. 206, 207, 105 S.E. 732; Griffin v. State, 208 Ga. 746, 749, 69 S.E.2d 192.......
-
Hewitt v. State
...palpable, and flagrant abuse of this discretion"—citing Sealy v. State, 1 Ga. 213, 44 Am. Dec. 641; Howell v. State, 5 Ga. 48; Roberts v. State, 14 Ga. 6; Revel v. State, 26 Ga. 275; Long v. State, 38 Ga. 491; Oglesby v. State, 121 Ga. 602, 49 S. E. 706; Rawlins v. State, 124 Ga. 31, 52 S. ......
-
Blackston v. State, 17844
...the trial judge, and this court will not interfere unless it is clearly shown that he has abused his discretion. Code, § 81-1419; Roberts v. State, 14 Ga. 6; Long v. State, 38 Ga. 491; Cannady v. State, 190 Ga. 227, 9 S.E.2d 241; Moore v. State, 202 Ga. 357, 43 S.E.2d 251; Griffin v. State,......