Hammett v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Hammett v. State

177 S.E. 598, 179 Ga. 776, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 402

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 17, 1934

DocketNo. 10494

StatusPublished

This text of 177 S.E. 598 (Hammett 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

Hammett v. State, 177 S.E. 598, 179 Ga. 776, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 402 (Ga. 1934).

Pincite

Opinions

Beck, P. J.

Hnder the evidence the jury were authorized to find the defendant guilty of the offense of murder.

In the motion for new trial it is alleged that a named juror had, on a given date, been adjudged insane, as shown by the records, and that he had not been discharged from the hospital for the insane, but was absent therefrom on leave. As to this ground affidavits were introduced by the defendant and numerous affidavits were introduced by the State. Many deponents testified that they knew the juror well, and had been with him frequently since he came back from the asylum; several testifying that his insanity was caused by the use of intoxicants, but that he was perfectly sane [782]*782and restored to his sound mental condition. Moreover, there was evidence to show that the defendant on trial knew the juror’s condition while in jail, just before he was sent to the asylum. Under the evidence as to the mental condition of the juror, the court did not err in holding that he was competent, and in refusing a new trial on the ground that he was mentally incompetent.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except

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

Beck, P. J.

Hnder the evidence the jury were authorized to find the defendant guilty of the offense of murder.

In the motion for new trial it is alleged that a named juror had, on a given date, been adjudged insane, as shown by the records, and that he had not been discharged from the hospital for the insane, but was absent therefrom on leave. As to this ground affidavits were introduced by the defendant and numerous affidavits were introduced by the State. Many deponents testified that they knew the juror well, and had been with him frequently since he came back from the asylum; several testifying that his insanity was caused by the use of intoxicants, but that he was perfectly sane [782]*782and restored to his sound mental condition. Moreover, there was evidence to show that the defendant on trial knew the juror’s condition while in jail, just before he was sent to the asylum. Under the evidence as to the mental condition of the juror, the court did not err in holding that he was competent, and in refusing a new trial on the ground that he was mentally incompetent.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 S.E. 598, 179 Ga. 776, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammett-v-state-ga-1934.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack