Goldstein v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Goldstein v. State

107 S.E. 176, 26 Ga. App. 651, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 582

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 13, 1921

Docket12213

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 107 S.E. 176 (Goldstein 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

Goldstein v. State, 107 S.E. 176, 26 Ga. App. 651, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 582 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. “ Every defendant has the right to be tried upon an indictment or accusation perfect in form and substance, but this right, like every other (even the right of trial itself) may be waived. One who waives his right to be tried upon an indictment perfect in form as well as substance, and takes his chances of acquittal, will not be heard, after conviction, to urge defects in the indictment, unless those defects are so great that the accusation is absolutely void.” Lanier v. State, 5 Ga. App. 472(2) (63 S. E. 536). There was no demurrer in this case, the accusation was not “ absolutely void,” and the court did not err in overruling the motion in arrest of judgment.

2. There is ample evidence to support the finding of the jury, which has the approval of the trial judge, and this court will not interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

The ground of the motion in arrest of judgment was that the accusation “ sets out no offense under the laws of the State of Georgia.” In the bill of exceptions it is alleged that the judgment overruling this motion was erroneous because (1) the accusation “ showed on its face that it was only a breach of a promise to perform in .the future,” and (2) the accusation “showed on its face that there was no false representation as to a past or existing fact.”

Titus & Delete, for plaintiff in error. H. J. McIntyre, solicitor, contra.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. “ Every defendant has the right to be tried upon an indictment or accusation perfect in form and substance, but this right, like every other (even the right of trial itself) may be waived. One who waives his right to be tried upon an indictment perfect in form as well as substance, and takes his chances of acquittal, will not be heard, after conviction, to urge defects in the indictment, unless those defects are so great that the accusation is absolutely void.” Lanier v. State, 5 Ga. App. 472(2) (63 S. E. 536). There was no demurrer in this case, the accusation was not “ absolutely void,” and the court did not err in overruling the motion in arrest of judgment.

2. There is ample evidence to support the finding of the jury, which has the approval of the trial judge, and this court will not interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

The ground of the motion in arrest of judgment was that the accusation “ sets out no offense under the laws of the State of Georgia.” In the bill of exceptions it is alleged that the judgment overruling this motion was erroneous because (1) the accusation “ showed on its face that it was only a breach of a promise to perform in .the future,” and (2) the accusation “showed on its face that there was no false representation as to a past or existing fact.”

Titus & Delete, for plaintiff in error. H. J. McIntyre, solicitor, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 S.E. 176, 26 Ga. App. 651, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldstein-v-state-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack