Harp v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Harp v. State

153 S.E. 375, 41 Ga. App. 499, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 955

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 14, 1930

Docket20491

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 153 S.E. 375 (Harp 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

Harp v. State, 153 S.E. 375, 41 Ga. App. 499, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 955 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Bkoyles, C. J.

1. The fact that one. of the jurors had not been drawn to serve on the jury during the term of the court at which the defendant was tried is an objection propter defectum, and arises too late when not made until after the verdict, though the movant did not previously know the fact alleged. Stapleton v. State, 19 Ga. App. 36 (15) (90 S. E. 1029); Jordan v. State, 119 Ga. 443, 445 (46 S. E. 679). Furthermore, the movant and his counsel failed to state in their affidavits that they could not have discovered the fact by the exercise of ordinary diligence.

2. While the evidence for the State amply authorized a verdict of murder, the evidence as a whole, including the evidence for the defense and the defendant’s statement, authorized the verdict of voluntary manslaughter, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luhe and Bloodworth, JJ., ooneur.

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

Bkoyles, C. J.

1. The fact that one. of the jurors had not been drawn to serve on the jury during the term of the court at which the defendant was tried is an objection propter defectum, and arises too late when not made until after the verdict, though the movant did not previously know the fact alleged. Stapleton v. State, 19 Ga. App. 36 (15) (90 S. E. 1029); Jordan v. State, 119 Ga. 443, 445 (46 S. E. 679). Furthermore, the movant and his counsel failed to state in their affidavits that they could not have discovered the fact by the exercise of ordinary diligence.

2. While the evidence for the State amply authorized a verdict of murder, the evidence as a whole, including the evidence for the defense and the defendant’s statement, authorized the verdict of voluntary manslaughter, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luhe and Bloodworth, JJ., ooneur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 S.E. 375, 41 Ga. App. 499, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harp-v-state-gactapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack