Carter v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Carter v. State

69 S.E. 588, 8 Ga. App. 471, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 225

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 29, 1910

Docket2977

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 69 S.E. 588 (Carter 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

Carter v. State, 69 S.E. 588, 8 Ga. App. 471, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 225 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Powell, J.

The first headnote is quoted from the code; the third is but a restatement of a proposition so well settled as to [472]*472deserve no present elaboration. As to the second headnote: The jury delivered into court the accusation with the endorsement thereon, “We, the ......, find the defendant guilty, this 21st day of June, 1910, J. E. Kinard, foreman.” The defendant moved in arrest of judgment, on the ground that there was no legal verdict; that the “pretended verdict does not disclose whose verdict it was, whether that of a jury or what.” As it appears that the “pretended verdict” was entered on the accusation, was signed by one of the jurors as foreman, and was brought into court and received as the verdict of " the jury, we do not think that there is much doubt as to whose verdict it was. We hardly believe that the words, “We, the ......,” as used under the circumstances, would be construed by many ordinary folks as meaning “we, the Georgia legislature,” or “we, the city council,” or “we, the local baseball team,” or anything else than “we, the jury.” We so understand it, the trial judge so understood it; and it seems that the defendant or his counsel so understood it, for he recites in the bill of exceptions tendered by Kim that “a verdict of guilty was rendered in said cause against defendant therein.”

Judgment affirmed.

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

Powell, J.

The first headnote is quoted from the code; the third is but a restatement of a proposition so well settled as to [472]*472deserve no present elaboration. As to the second headnote: The jury delivered into court the accusation with the endorsement thereon, “We, the ......, find the defendant guilty, this 21st day of June, 1910, J. E. Kinard, foreman.” The defendant moved in arrest of judgment, on the ground that there was no legal verdict; that the “pretended verdict does not disclose whose verdict it was, whether that of a jury or what.” As it appears that the “pretended verdict” was entered on the accusation, was signed by one of the jurors as foreman, and was brought into court and received as the verdict of " the jury, we do not think that there is much doubt as to whose verdict it was. We hardly believe that the words, “We, the ......,” as used under the circumstances, would be construed by many ordinary folks as meaning “we, the Georgia legislature,” or “we, the city council,” or “we, the local baseball team,” or anything else than “we, the jury.” We so understand it, the trial judge so understood it; and it seems that the defendant or his counsel so understood it, for he recites in the bill of exceptions tendered by Kim that “a verdict of guilty was rendered in said cause against defendant therein.”

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 S.E. 588, 8 Ga. App. 471, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-state-gactapp-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack