Boyd v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Boyd v. State

118 S.E. 705, 156 Ga. 48, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 198

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJuly 21, 1923

DocketNo. 3713

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 118 S.E. 705 (Boyd 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

Boyd v. State, 118 S.E. 705, 156 Ga. 48, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 198 (Ga. 1923).

Pincite

Opinions

Gilbert, J.

The Court of Appeals certified to this court the following question: “ Where in one count of an indictment it is alleged that the defendant, on November 15, 1922, did sell spirituous liquors,'etc., and in the second count of the same indictment it is alleged that the defendant, on the same date did have, possess, and control spirituous liquors, etc., and the same evidence is relied upon to convict under both counts, and the evidence adduced demands a conviction under both counts, and the court instructed the jury upon both counts of the indictment, is a verdict, finding the defendant guilty on the first count, and silent as to the second count, void for repugnancy?” Jield: The verdict finding the defendant guilty on the first count and silent as to the second count is not void for repugnancy.

(а) In Kuck v. State, 149 Ga. 191 (99 S. E. 622), where two counts in an indictment were identical with, those described in the question propounded, and where the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the first count and a verdict of not guilty on the second count, this court held such verdict void for repugnancy. That ease differs from the present case, where the verdict was silent as to the second count

(б) In Hathcock v. State, 88 Ga. 91 (2) (13 S. E. 959), it was held: “ Where the trial is had' at the same time on two counts in an accusation, a verdict of guilty on one: count alone is an acquittal on the other, but such acquittal does not vitiate the conviction, although [49]*49both counts may relate to the same transaction.” Properly construed, the ruling in this case, to the effect that the verdict of “ guilty ” on one count alone is an “ acquittal on the other,” means that the effect of silence as to one count will prevent another trial on the same count under the constitutional ground of former jeopardy. So far as punishment of the accused is concerned the result is the same as if there had been a verdict' of acquittal. As regards the finding of the jury such is not the case. Wien the verdict is silent on one count, it cannot be said that the jury have made any finding on that count; and it follows that there is no finding repugnant to the finding- on the other count. This is true even though the jury must-be presumed to know the effect of silence on one of the counts.

No. 3713. July 21, 1923. Porter & Mebane, for plaintiff in error. P. S. Taylor, solicitor-general, contra. All the Justices concur, except Russell, C. J., dissenting.

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

Gilbert, J.

The Court of Appeals certified to this court the following question: “ Where in one count of an indictment it is alleged that the defendant, on November 15, 1922, did sell spirituous liquors,'etc., and in the second count of the same indictment it is alleged that the defendant, on the same date did have, possess, and control spirituous liquors, etc., and the same evidence is relied upon to convict under both counts, and the evidence adduced demands a conviction under both counts, and the court instructed the jury upon both counts of the indictment, is a verdict, finding the defendant guilty on the first count, and silent as to the second count, void for repugnancy?” Jield: The verdict finding the defendant guilty on the first count and silent as to the second count is not void for repugnancy.

(а) In Kuck v. State, 149 Ga. 191 (99 S. E. 622), where two counts in an indictment were identical with, those described in the question propounded, and where the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the first count and a verdict of not guilty on the second count, this court held such verdict void for repugnancy. That ease differs from the present case, where the verdict was silent as to the second count

(б) In Hathcock v. State, 88 Ga. 91 (2) (13 S. E. 959), it was held: “ Where the trial is had' at the same time on two counts in an accusation, a verdict of guilty on one: count alone is an acquittal on the other, but such acquittal does not vitiate the conviction, although [49]*49both counts may relate to the same transaction.” Properly construed, the ruling in this case, to the effect that the verdict of “ guilty ” on one count alone is an “ acquittal on the other,” means that the effect of silence as to one count will prevent another trial on the same count under the constitutional ground of former jeopardy. So far as punishment of the accused is concerned the result is the same as if there had been a verdict' of acquittal. As regards the finding of the jury such is not the case. Wien the verdict is silent on one count, it cannot be said that the jury have made any finding on that count; and it follows that there is no finding repugnant to the finding- on the other count. This is true even though the jury must-be presumed to know the effect of silence on one of the counts.

No. 3713. July 21, 1923. Porter & Mebane, for plaintiff in error. P. S. Taylor, solicitor-general, contra. All the Justices concur, except Russell, C. J., dissenting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 S.E. 705, 156 Ga. 48, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyd-v-state-ga-1923.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack