Gainey v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Gainey v. State

206 S.E.2d 474, 232 Ga. 334, 1974 Ga. LEXIS 941

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 28, 1974

Docket28860

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 206 S.E.2d 474 (Gainey 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

Gainey v. State, 206 S.E.2d 474, 232 Ga. 334, 1974 Ga. LEXIS 941 (Ga. 1974).

Pincite

Opinions

[334]*334Nichols, Presiding Justice.

Sandra Gainey was indicted for the murder of her husband and convicted of voluntary manslaughter. The jury was unable to agree upon a sentence on the sentencing phase of their deliberations and under the provisions of the Act of 1970 (Ga. L. 1970, p. 949; Code Ann. § 27-2534), the trial court removed such question from the jury’s consideration and, after conducting a pre-sentence investigation, 12 days later sentenced the appellant. For the first time, in her amended motion for new trial, the appellant attacked the constitutionality of the above statute permitting the court to remove the case from the jury’s consideration.

Under repeated rulings of the court the constitutional question, presented for the first time in the defendant’s motion for new trial, was not timely raised so as to confer jurisdiction of the appeal upon the Supreme Court. See Brackett v. State, 227 Ga. 493 (181 SE2d 380); Woods v. State, 222 Ga. 321 (1) (149 SE2d 674).

The appeal is within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals and not this court.

Transferred to the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur, except Gunter, J, who dissents. [335]*335FredM. Hasty, District Attorney, Charles H. Weston, for appellee.

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

[334]*334Nichols, Presiding Justice.

Sandra Gainey was indicted for the murder of her husband and convicted of voluntary manslaughter. The jury was unable to agree upon a sentence on the sentencing phase of their deliberations and under the provisions of the Act of 1970 (Ga. L. 1970, p. 949; Code Ann. § 27-2534), the trial court removed such question from the jury’s consideration and, after conducting a pre-sentence investigation, 12 days later sentenced the appellant. For the first time, in her amended motion for new trial, the appellant attacked the constitutionality of the above statute permitting the court to remove the case from the jury’s consideration.

Under repeated rulings of the court the constitutional question, presented for the first time in the defendant’s motion for new trial, was not timely raised so as to confer jurisdiction of the appeal upon the Supreme Court. See Brackett v. State, 227 Ga. 493 (181 SE2d 380); Woods v. State, 222 Ga. 321 (1) (149 SE2d 674).

The appeal is within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals and not this court.

Transferred to the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur, except Gunter, J, who dissents. [335]*335FredM. Hasty, District Attorney, Charles H. Weston, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 S.E.2d 474, 232 Ga. 334, 1974 Ga. LEXIS 941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gainey-v-state-ga-1974.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack