Walker v. State
| Decision Date | 04 July 1892 |
| Citation | 89 Ga. 482,15 S.E. 553 |
| Parties | Walker v. State. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Criminal Law—Demand tor Trial.
A demand for trial made under section 4648 of the Code is not waived or rendered unavailable by postponing the trial on the last day of the second term at the request of the prisoner on account of the temporary absence of a bailiff in the service of the court, the bailiff being a witness whose attendance at the trial the prisoner desired, and the postponement requested and allowed being only temporary, and not intended as a continuance for the term. Whether the bailiff returned or not, and whether the court was informed of his return or not, the statutory requirement to try the prisoner at that term should have been complied with: and, this not having been done, he was entitled to be "absolutely discharged and acquitted of the offense charged in the indictment." A waiver of the demand would result from a continuance granted on the motion of the accused, or from any other act on his part showing affirmatively that he consented to passing the case until a subsequent term.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from superior court, Marion county; J. H. Maktin, Judge
W. F. Walker was indicted for a misdemeanor, and from an order denying his motion for a discharge, he brings error. Reversed.
The following is the official report:
The indictment was for a misdemeanor. The defendant excepts to the overruling of his motion for discharge on the following facts: The indictment was found at the April term, 1891, of the superior court, at which term the case was continued by the state. At the same term the defendant placed his demand for trial on the minutes of the court, and a jury was impaneled competent to try the case. At the next term a jury competent to try the case was again impaneled, but the case was not tried. In the forenoon of the last day of court at that term the case was sounded on the docket by the court, whereupon the defendant asked the court to pass the case temporarily, owing to the fact that one of his witnesses was a bailiff of the court, and had been sent off to serve some papers, and would return in a short while, when the defendant would be ready. This the court permitted to be done. The witness returned some time before the adjournment of the court, in ample time to try the case; but the attention of neither the court nor the solicitor general was called to this fact by any one. The case was not sounded again, and the court adjourned for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kuhnhausen
...that the case had not been postponed on his application.' To the same effect, see In re McMichen, 39 Kan. 406, 18 P. 473; Walker v. State, 89 Ga. 482, 15 S.E. 553; In re Garvey, 7 Colo. 502, 4 P. 758; Ochs v. People, 124 Ill. 399, 16 N.E. 'There is no pretense here that the case was postpon......
-
State v. Foster
...24 P. 892; People v. Douglass, 34 P. 490; In re Begero, 65 P. 828; State v. Brodie et al., 35 P. 137; State v. Kuhn, 57 N.E. 106; Walker v. State, 15 S.E. 553; In re 4 P. 758; In re McMicken, 18 P. 473; Ochs et al. v. People, 16 N.E. 662. The court erred in restricting and limiting the cros......
-
Bennett v. State
...or from any other act on his part showing affirmatively that he consented to passing the case until a subsequent term." Walker v. State, 89 Ga. 482, 15 S.E. 553 (1892). The only question, therefore, is what effect the subsequent withdrawal by appellant of his guilty plea and the filing of h......
-
Adams v. State
...Only if she had agreed to postponement to a time outside the term of the demand would she be held to have waived the demand. Walker v. State, 89 Ga. 482, 15 S.E. 553. Nor was she under any duty affirmatively to seek trial once her demand was filed and placed in the minutes of the court. Dub......