Armstrong v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Armstrong v. State

148 S.E. 167, 39 Ga. App. 593, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 449

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 10, 1929

Docket19541; 19542

StatusPublished

This text of 148 S.E. 167 (Armstrong v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Armstrong v. State, 148 S.E. 167, 39 Ga. App. 593, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 449 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. “Statutes regulating the drawing of jurors are generally regarded as directory merely, and where there has been substantial compliance with legal requirements, any irregularity in the drawing which can not affect the right to a trial by a fair and impartial jury furnishes no ground for challenging the array.” Governor v. State, 5 Ga. App. 357 (63 S. E. 241). See also, in this connection, Woolfolk v. State, 85 Ga. 69 (5, 6, 7) (11 S. E. 814); Crawford v. State, 81 Ga. 708; Garter v. State, 56 Ga. 463 (2). Under the foregoing ruling and the facts of the instant eases, the overruling of the challenge to the array of the jurors was not error for any reason assigned in the challenge.

2. In neither case was the evidence adduced upon the trial sufficient to authorize a verdict of voluntary manslaughter; and therefore the court erred in overruling the motions for a new trial.

Judgments reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bloodworth, J.

1. “Statutes regulating the drawing of jurors are generally regarded as directory merely, and where there has been substantial compliance with legal requirements, any irregularity in the drawing which can not affect the right to a trial by a fair and impartial jury furnishes no ground for challenging the array.” Governor v. State, 5 Ga. App. 357 (63 S. E. 241). See also, in this connection, Woolfolk v. State, 85 Ga. 69 (5, 6, 7) (11 S. E. 814); Crawford v. State, 81 Ga. 708; Garter v. State, 56 Ga. 463 (2). Under the foregoing ruling and the facts of the instant eases, the overruling of the challenge to the array of the jurors was not error for any reason assigned in the challenge.

2. In neither case was the evidence adduced upon the trial sufficient to authorize a verdict of voluntary manslaughter; and therefore the court erred in overruling the motions for a new trial.

Judgments reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 S.E. 167, 39 Ga. App. 593, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-state-gactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack