Gossett v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Gossett v. State

41 S.E.2d 308, 201 Ga. 809, 1947 Ga. LEXIS 325

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 5, 1947

Docket15705.

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 41 S.E.2d 308 (Gossett 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

Gossett v. State, 41 S.E.2d 308, 201 Ga. 809, 1947 Ga. LEXIS 325 (Ga. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Duckworth, Presiding Justice.

Although neither of the two named mutual life insurance companies appeared in the indictment for murder as prosecutor, it was admitted in open court that an attorney who assisted the solicitor-general in the trial of the case was employed and paid by the insurance companies to assist the prosecution; It further appeared that the deceased held insurance policies in each of the said companies, in which policies the accused was named as beneficiary-This rendered the jurors who held policies in either one of the insurance-companies disqualified to serve as jurors in the case. McElhannon v. State, 99 Ga. 672 (26 S. E. 501) ; Moore v. Farmers’ Mutual Ins. Assn., 107 Ga. 199, 209 (33 S. E. 65) ; Lyens v. State, 133 Ga. 587 (66 S. E. 792) ; Campbell v. State, 144 Ga. 224 (87 S. E. 277) ; Fordham v. State, 148 Ga. 758 (98 S. E. 267); Whitworth v. State, 155 Ga. 395 (117 S. E. 450). The motion for new trial showing .the foregoing facts, and complaining of the ruling denying a timely request by counsel for the accused that inquiry of all jurors be made as to whether or not they held policies in either of the named companies, and that all jurors holding such policies be held disqualified, and complaining that the foreman of the jury which convicted the accused was a policyholder in one of the'named companies, showed reversible error, and the judgment overruling the motion for new trial must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Duckworth, Presiding Justice.

Although neither of the two named mutual life insurance companies appeared in the indictment for murder as prosecutor, it was admitted in open court that an attorney who assisted the solicitor-general in the trial of the case was employed and paid by the insurance companies to assist the prosecution; It further appeared that the deceased held insurance policies in each of the said companies, in which policies the accused was named as beneficiary-This rendered the jurors who held policies in either one of the insurance-companies disqualified to serve as jurors in the case. McElhannon v. State, 99 Ga. 672 (26 S. E. 501) ; Moore v. Farmers’ Mutual Ins. Assn., 107 Ga. 199, 209 (33 S. E. 65) ; Lyens v. State, 133 Ga. 587 (66 S. E. 792) ; Campbell v. State, 144 Ga. 224 (87 S. E. 277) ; Fordham v. State, 148 Ga. 758 (98 S. E. 267); Whitworth v. State, 155 Ga. 395 (117 S. E. 450). The motion for new trial showing .the foregoing facts, and complaining of the ruling denying a timely request by counsel for the accused that inquiry of all jurors be made as to whether or not they held policies in either of the named companies, and that all jurors holding such policies be held disqualified, and complaining that the foreman of the jury which convicted the accused was a policyholder in one of the'named companies, showed reversible error, and the judgment overruling the motion for new trial must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 S.E.2d 308, 201 Ga. 809, 1947 Ga. LEXIS 325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gossett-v-state-ga-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack