Bailey v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Bailey v. State

159 S.E.2d 286, 224 Ga. 36, 1968 Ga. LEXIS 655

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 5, 1968

Docket24427

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 159 S.E.2d 286 (Bailey v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bailey v. State, 159 S.E.2d 286, 224 Ga. 36, 1968 Ga. LEXIS 655 (Ga. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Grice, Justice.

This court’s jurisdiction of this appeal is predicated upon alleged constitutional questions raised by the appellant’s challenge to the array of jurors who found him guilty of abandonment of his child. However, none of the grounds of the challenge properly presents any constitutional question for decision by this court. Grounds 1 and 2 involve mere application of unambiguous constitutional provisions to a given state of facts. See Baker v. State, 198 Ga. 291 (31 SE2d 397). Ground 3 attacks “The statute enacted by the General Assembly for the selection of juries,” with no further identification or citation, as violating “Section 5102 [sic], Georgia Constitution, Chapter 2,” “Article XIV, Constitution of the United States,” “Section 2-102, Constitution of Georgia,” and several other “Sections” of the Georgia Constitution, thus not identifying the law attacked or the provisions of the Constitution it is contended to violate. See Tomlinson v. Sadler, 214 Ga. 671, 673 (107 SE2d 215); Williams v. State, 217 Ga. 312, 313 (122 SE2d 229).

Transferred to the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur.

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

Grice, Justice.

This court’s jurisdiction of this appeal is predicated upon alleged constitutional questions raised by the appellant’s challenge to the array of jurors who found him guilty of abandonment of his child. However, none of the grounds of the challenge properly presents any constitutional question for decision by this court. Grounds 1 and 2 involve mere application of unambiguous constitutional provisions to a given state of facts. See Baker v. State, 198 Ga. 291 (31 SE2d 397). Ground 3 attacks “The statute enacted by the General Assembly for the selection of juries,” with no further identification or citation, as violating “Section 5102 [sic], Georgia Constitution, Chapter 2,” “Article XIV, Constitution of the United States,” “Section 2-102, Constitution of Georgia,” and several other “Sections” of the Georgia Constitution, thus not identifying the law attacked or the provisions of the Constitution it is contended to violate. See Tomlinson v. Sadler, 214 Ga. 671, 673 (107 SE2d 215); Williams v. State, 217 Ga. 312, 313 (122 SE2d 229).

Transferred to the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 S.E.2d 286, 224 Ga. 36, 1968 Ga. LEXIS 655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-state-ga-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack