Golden v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Golden v. State

171 S.E. 387, 47 Ga. App. 746, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 638

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 20, 1933

Docket23589

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 171 S.E. 387 (Golden 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

Golden v. State, 171 S.E. 387, 47 Ga. App. 746, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 638 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Guerry, J.

1. “In the determination of whether the venue of a criminal case shall be, changed for the reason that the condition of the public mind is such that the accused can not obtain a fair trial by an impartial jury, the law imposes upon the trial judge the responsibility of making an examination and informing himself of the truth of the averments upon which the application is made; and the Supreme Court has no power to control his discretion in such a matter, unless it has been plainly and manifestly abused.” Rawlins v. State, 124 Ga. 31 (52 S. E. 1). The record does not disclose any such abuse in the present case.

2. The fact that this and companion cases were tried in a county in which the jury box contained only 386 names, and that the trials created widespread public interest and large attendance, does not indicate an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in refusing the motion for a change of venue, it also appearing that there were more than 150 jurors in the box who were never summoned. The evidence as to whether or not a fair trial might be obtained being in conflict, this court will not interfere with the discretion vested in the trial judge. Grenoble v. State, 41 Ga. App. 663 (154 S. E. 304), and cit.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Guerry, J.

1. “In the determination of whether the venue of a criminal case shall be, changed for the reason that the condition of the public mind is such that the accused can not obtain a fair trial by an impartial jury, the law imposes upon the trial judge the responsibility of making an examination and informing himself of the truth of the averments upon which the application is made; and the Supreme Court has no power to control his discretion in such a matter, unless it has been plainly and manifestly abused.” Rawlins v. State, 124 Ga. 31 (52 S. E. 1). The record does not disclose any such abuse in the present case.

2. The fact that this and companion cases were tried in a county in which the jury box contained only 386 names, and that the trials created widespread public interest and large attendance, does not indicate an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in refusing the motion for a change of venue, it also appearing that there were more than 150 jurors in the box who were never summoned. The evidence as to whether or not a fair trial might be obtained being in conflict, this court will not interfere with the discretion vested in the trial judge. Grenoble v. State, 41 Ga. App. 663 (154 S. E. 304), and cit.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 S.E. 387, 47 Ga. App. 746, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/golden-v-state-gactapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack