Smith v. The State Of Ga.
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
| Writing for the Court | Bleckley |
| Citation | 60 Ga. 430 |
| Parties | Smith. v. The State of Georgia. |
| Decision Date | 31 January 1878 |
60 Ga. 430
Smith. v. The State of Georgia.
Supreme Court of the State of Georgia
(January Term, 1878.)
[This case was argued at the last term and decision reserved.]
[60 Ga. 431]Criminal law. Indictment. Verdict. Sentence. Practice in the Superior Court. Judgments. Before Judge Tompkins. Chatham Superior Court. February Term, 1877.
Smith and Davis were charged with the offense of larceny from the house of goods over the value of $50.00, for that *they, in the county of Chatham and state of Georgia, on December 20, 1876, with force and arms, from the dwelling-house of one Eldred Geffcken, one pocket-book, of the value of $1.00, and * * * all the property of one Georgia C. Geffcken, therein being found, wrongfully, feloniously, and fraudulently, did take and carry away with intent to steal the same, etc. The jury acquitted Davis, but found Smith guilty. The court sentenced him to the penitentiary for eight years. It did not appear in the record of the case that either the prisoner or his counsel was present when judgment was pronounced. Smith moved to set aside the sentence because it was unsigned, not sufficiently full, the punishment was excessive, and it was unauthorized by the verdict. Also, because the pleadings and record were so fatally defective that no valid judgment could be based thereon.
The judge certifies that the sentence was pronounced and entered on the minutes on January 26, 1877, and the minutes duly signed.
The motion was overruled, and defendant excepted.
A. P. & S. B. Adams; P. W. Meldrim, for plaintiff in error.
A. B. Smith, solicitor general, for the state.
Bleckley, Judge.
1. The indictment omitted the word "privately, " in alleging the act of stealing. Objection to it on this ground came too late, after verdict. Code, § 4629.
2. The value of the stolen goods being alleged in the indictment, and the allegation being material in grading the punishment, a general verdict of guilty was a finding that the allegation was true. If the value proved had been under fifty dollars, the jury would have returned the fact specially (12 Ga, 298), or rendered a verdict of not guilty.
3. In Georgia practice, the presence of the prisoner and his
[60 Ga. 432]counsel, in all stages of the proceedings, is assumed, unless *the contrary appears. The court will do nothing in their absence that ought to be done in their presence, and will, from time to time, see for itself that they are present. But it is not usual to make any special entry in the minutes, or elsewhere, as a memorial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Geiger v. State, No. 47900
...courts have Page 870 ruled this right remains with the accused at every stage of trial. Martin v. State, 51 Ga. 567, 568; Smith v. State, 60 Ga. 430, 432; Roberson v. State, 135 Ga. 654(2), 70 S.E. 175; Duke v. State, 104 Ga.App. 494, 122 S.E.2d But, just as other constitutional and statuto......
-
Bartley v. State, 9347
...(State v. Hood, 51 Me. 363; Cook v. State, 49 Miss. 8; State v. White, 25 Wis. 359; Schoonover v. State, 17 O. St. 294; Smith v. State, 60 Ga. 430; Commonwealth v. Butler, 144 Pa. St. 568; State v. Knox, 17 Neb. 683; Gady v. State, 83 Ala. 51.) Other references: Norris v. State, 25 O. St. 2......
-
Fowler v. Grimes, No. 14859.
...L.Ed. 218; Franks v. State, 120 Ga. 495, 48 S.E. 148; Sarah v. State, 28 Ga. 576 (10), 583; Grady v. State, 11 Ga. 253(5); Smith v. State, 60 Ga. 430; 15 Am.Jur. 113, § 455), no violation of the due-process clause of the 14th Federal amendment appears, where the attack is not on the origina......
-
Cox v. State, No. S04A2060
...time of arraignment. Wells, supra, 121 Ga. at 371, 49 S.E. 319 (to arraign prisoner in his absence is legally impossible); Smith v. State, 60 Ga. 430(3) (1878). The time of arraignment is also important because under Rule 31.1 a defendant must file all pretrial motions at or before arraignm......
-
Geiger v. State, No. 47900
...courts have Page 870 ruled this right remains with the accused at every stage of trial. Martin v. State, 51 Ga. 567, 568; Smith v. State, 60 Ga. 430, 432; Roberson v. State, 135 Ga. 654(2), 70 S.E. 175; Duke v. State, 104 Ga.App. 494, 122 S.E.2d But, just as other constitutional and statuto......
-
Bartley v. State, 9347
...(State v. Hood, 51 Me. 363; Cook v. State, 49 Miss. 8; State v. White, 25 Wis. 359; Schoonover v. State, 17 O. St. 294; Smith v. State, 60 Ga. 430; Commonwealth v. Butler, 144 Pa. St. 568; State v. Knox, 17 Neb. 683; Gady v. State, 83 Ala. 51.) Other references: Norris v. State, 25 O. St. 2......
-
Fowler v. Grimes, No. 14859.
...L.Ed. 218; Franks v. State, 120 Ga. 495, 48 S.E. 148; Sarah v. State, 28 Ga. 576 (10), 583; Grady v. State, 11 Ga. 253(5); Smith v. State, 60 Ga. 430; 15 Am.Jur. 113, § 455), no violation of the due-process clause of the 14th Federal amendment appears, where the attack is not on the origina......
-
Cox v. State, No. S04A2060
...time of arraignment. Wells, supra, 121 Ga. at 371, 49 S.E. 319 (to arraign prisoner in his absence is legally impossible); Smith v. State, 60 Ga. 430(3) (1878). The time of arraignment is also important because under Rule 31.1 a defendant must file all pretrial motions at or before arraignm......