Simpson v. State, 38004
| Decision Date | 18 November 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 38004,No. 2,38004,2 |
| Citation | 100 Ga.App. 726,112 S.E.2d 314 |
| Parties | James SIMPSON v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
J. Laddie Boatwright, Douglas, for plaintiff in error.
Dewey Hayes, Sol. Gen., Douglas, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. The record in this case shows that the defendant James Simpson was placed in custody on May 18, 1957, in connection with the theft of some copper wire; that an affidavit and warrant of arrest were issued on May 25, 1957, charging the defendant with larceny of copper wire; that on May 25, the defendant made bond to 'be and appear at the next term of the superior court of said county, to be held on the fourth Monday in May, 1957 * * * then and there to answer to the offense of stealing copper wire from Satilla R.E.A.'; that on May 30, 1957, which was during the week of May 27, on which the new term of the Bacon Superior Court convened the defendant was indicted by the grand jury for the theft of the wire and that on November 19, he filed a plea in abatement to the indictment on the ground that 15 of the grand jurors were disqualified by reason of being members and stockholders of the Satilla Rural Electric Membership Corporation from which the wire was allegedly stolen. The court overruled the plea on the ground that it was filed too late. 'Points relating to the number of grand jurors drawn and their competency should be made before the true bill is found, and not on the trial before the traverse jury, especially where the defendant is under a charge that apprises him that the case will go before the grand jury, by being under bond to appear or confined in jail to answer the offense at court.' Turner v. State, 78 Ga. 174(1). See also Tucker v. State, 135 Ga. 79(1), 68 S.E. 786 and citations. While the defendant alleges in his plea that he had never seen the warrant of arrest, he necessarily saw his bond and therefore should have been apprised that he would have to answer the charge of stealing the wire at the term of court which convened on May 27, 1957. Nothing appearing to the contrary, it will be presumed that the grand jury for such term had been chosen under the provision of Code, § 59-203, and the names would accordingly have been available to the defendant in advance. Accordingly, his failure to make a timely challenge to the competency of certain grand jurors must be considered to have been waived, and the trial court did not err in dismissing the plea in abatement filed some time after the indictment had been returned.
2. A defendant indicted for simple larceny is entitled on demand by special demu...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...juror in case in which corporation had interest) (decided prior to the 2009 enactment of OCGA § 15–12–137.1) with Simpson v. State, 100 Ga.App. 726, 112 S.E.2d 314 (1959) (member of electric membership corporation could serve as grand juror in case in which corporation had interest). In thi......
-
Dawson v. State
...we presume that the other qualifications of OCGA § 15-12-60 (formerly Code Ann. § 59-201) were met. See generally Simpson v. State, 100 Ga.App. 726(1), 112 S.E.2d 314 (1959). 3. "[Defendant] objected to testimony relating to previous incidents of animosity between the [defendant] and victim......
-
Thomas v. State
... ... apprised of the particular property he or she is alleged to ... have damaged or interfered with."); Simpson v ... State, 100 Ga.App. 726, 726 (2) (112 S.E.2d 314) (1959) ... ("A description in an indictment merely that the ... property ... ...
-
Hayes v. State, 52202
...case will go before the grand jury, by being under bond to appear or confined in jail to answer the offense at court'.' Simpson v. State, 100 Ga.App. 726, 112 S.E.2d 314. The evidence at the hearing of the plea in abatement showed that appellant was represented by counsel priro to the retur......