Silvey v. The State Op Ga.
| Decision Date | 30 September 1883 |
| Citation | 71 Ga. 553 |
| Parties | Silvey. vs. The State op Georgia. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Criminal Law. Jurors. Verdict. Practice in Superior Court. Before Judge Hammond. Fulton Superior Court. April Term, 1883.
Reported in the decision.
Van Epps, Calhoun & King; D. P. Hill & Son, for plaintiff in error.
B. H. Hill, solicitor general, for the state.
The plaintiff in error was indicted for the offence of an assault with intent to murder. After the testimony had been delivered, the arguments of counsel (made), and the jury charged with the case by the court, the officers in charge of the jury permitted six of them to withdraw and separate from, and go to their homes; the others remained in the room, but were suffered to go to and return at will from the water-closet; one of the jurors separated himself, and by himself went to an engine house. One of the jurors asked a bailiff what the practice was, when the jury had agreed upon a verdict; he told him that they could write it out, give it to the foreman, an 1 could go home.
About nine o\'clock, the jury agreed upon a verdict, which was written out, and given to the foreman, after which the jury dispersed, as above stated. The next morning, the court caused the jury to be assembled in their room, and caused them to be brought before the court, when the court commenced to purge the jury, which elicited the facts before stated, and further, that the jury had not talked with any one about their verdict; but the investigation failed to show what was said in their presence and hearing about the case, and this was made manifest in the case of the juror Watts. The jury then returned their verdict, which was received by the court over the objections of defendant, and defendant moved to set aside said verdict. The court refused the motion, and defendant excepted.
When it was shown to the court that the jury who were charged with the case had dispersed, the onus was on the state to show that the accused had sustained no injury thereby. If the state fails in this, the verdict is a nullity, and should not be received; or if received, should be set aside by the court. 5 Ga., 150; 14 Ib., 15; 45 Ib., 282; 68 Ib., 760.
In this case, the purgation fell short of showing that the accused had not been damaged.
The agreement by the jury to find a verdict in a certain way, and the reducing the same to writing and delivery to the foreman, was not a verdict, but a mere resolution, which it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hughes v. State
...the courts, even where mere property is concerned, and certainly the rule should not be relaxed when human life is at stake. In Silvey v. State, 71 Ga. 553, it was held that a jury charged with a criminal case had dispersed the burden was on the state to show that the accused had sustained ......
-
Hughes v. State
...even where mere property is concerned, and certainly the rule should not be relaxed when human life is at stake. In Silvey v. State, 71 Ga. 553, It was held that where a jury charged with a criminal case had dispersed the burden was on the state to show that the accused had sustained no inj......
-
Brown v. State, (No. 1755.)
...on the ground that it was received during the absence of himself and his counsel, was obiter dictum. Frank v. State, supra. (b) In Silvey v. State, 71 Ga. 553, it was held that the trial judge erred in refusing a motion to set aside a verdict on the ground of misconduct of the jury, and the......
- Silvey v. State