First National Bank & Trust Co. v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

First National Bank & Trust Co. v. State

227 S.E.2d 20, 237 Ga. 112, 1976 Ga. LEXIS 1165

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 22, 1976

Docket31119

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 227 S.E.2d 20 (First National Bank & Trust Co. 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

First National Bank & Trust Co. v. State, 227 S.E.2d 20, 237 Ga. 112, 1976 Ga. LEXIS 1165 (Ga. 1976).

Pincite

Opinions

Hall, Justice.

We granted the petitioners’ application for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals holding that a superior court does not have jurisdiction to hold a commitment hearing after indictment. See First National Bank & Trust Co. in Macon v. State, 137 Ga. App. 760 (1976).

The petitioners contend the Court of Appeals erred in not passing upon the merits of their appeal from an order of the court committing them to trial on an indictment for theft of personal property. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals, but we do so for a different reason.

"The ... 'purpose of a commitment hearing is simply to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the accused guilty of the crime charged, and if so, to bind him over for indictment by the grand jury. Code § 27-407.’ ” State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 54 (222 SE2d 343) (1976). The same rule applies in the federal courts. See 8 Moore’s Federal Practice: Rules of Criminal Procedure, § 5.1.02 (1975); 1 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 80, pp. 134-143 (1969). Once a grand jury has indicted, the state is not required to make a further showing of probable cause. While the trial court has the authority to quash an indictment for defects appearing on its face (Daniel v. State, 63 Ga. App. 12 (10 SE2d 80) (1940)), it has [113]*113no authority to quash the indictment on the issue of an alleged lack of probable cause. The decision of the committing court "... settles nothing as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant.” Hyden v. State, 40 Ga. 476, 478 (1869). The latter issue can only be determined in a trial by the jury, by the court where a jury is waived, or by the court on a motion for directed verdict.

Argued June 14, 1976 Decided June 22, 1976. Knight, Perry & Franklin, Jones, Cork, Miller & Benton, Frank C. Jones, Timothy K. Adams, H. Jerome Strickland, for appellants. Vickers Neugent, District Attorney, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Gunter and Ingram, JJ., who concur specially.

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

Hall, Justice.

We granted the petitioners’ application for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals holding that a superior court does not have jurisdiction to hold a commitment hearing after indictment. See First National Bank & Trust Co. in Macon v. State, 137 Ga. App. 760 (1976).

The petitioners contend the Court of Appeals erred in not passing upon the merits of their appeal from an order of the court committing them to trial on an indictment for theft of personal property. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals, but we do so for a different reason.

"The ... 'purpose of a commitment hearing is simply to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the accused guilty of the crime charged, and if so, to bind him over for indictment by the grand jury. Code § 27-407.’ ” State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 54 (222 SE2d 343) (1976). The same rule applies in the federal courts. See 8 Moore’s Federal Practice: Rules of Criminal Procedure, § 5.1.02 (1975); 1 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 80, pp. 134-143 (1969). Once a grand jury has indicted, the state is not required to make a further showing of probable cause. While the trial court has the authority to quash an indictment for defects appearing on its face (Daniel v. State, 63 Ga. App. 12 (10 SE2d 80) (1940)), it has [113]*113no authority to quash the indictment on the issue of an alleged lack of probable cause. The decision of the committing court "... settles nothing as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant.” Hyden v. State, 40 Ga. 476, 478 (1869). The latter issue can only be determined in a trial by the jury, by the court where a jury is waived, or by the court on a motion for directed verdict.

Argued June 14, 1976 Decided June 22, 1976. Knight, Perry & Franklin, Jones, Cork, Miller & Benton, Frank C. Jones, Timothy K. Adams, H. Jerome Strickland, for appellants. Vickers Neugent, District Attorney, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Gunter and Ingram, JJ., who concur specially.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 S.E.2d 20, 237 Ga. 112, 1976 Ga. LEXIS 1165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-national-bank-trust-co-v-state-ga-1976.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack