Harrold v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Harrold v. State

124 S.E.2d 73, 217 Ga. 612, 1962 Ga. LEXIS 340

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 8, 1962

Docket21517

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 124 S.E.2d 73 (Harrold 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

Harrold v. State, 124 S.E.2d 73, 217 Ga. 612, 1962 Ga. LEXIS 340 (Ga. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

This being a criminal case not involving a conviction of a capital felony and the alleged constitutional violations in refusing to allow the defendant to be sworn as a witness and the refusal of the sheriff to allow counsel to see the accused, not amounting to attacks upon any law as being unconstitutional but merely involves application of the facts of the case to unquestioned and unambiguous provisions of the State and Federal Constitutions, requiring no further construction by this court, the Court of Appeals and not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction of this writ *613 of error. Code Ann. §§ 2-3704, 2-3708 (Constitution of 1945); Dade County v. State of Georgia, 201 Ga. 241 (39 SE2d 473); Jackson v. State, 203 Ga. 570 (47 SE2d 588); Stanley v. Amos, 204 Ga. 652 (51 SE2d 395); Boyett v. State, 205 Ga. 370 (53 SE2d 919); Sellers v. State, 207 Ga. 249 (61 SE2d 145).

Submitted January 9, 1962 Decided February 8, 1962. Al Jennings, for plaintiff in error. George D. Lawrence, Solicitor-General, Eugene Cook, Attorney-General, contra.

Transferred to the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur.

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

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

This being a criminal case not involving a conviction of a capital felony and the alleged constitutional violations in refusing to allow the defendant to be sworn as a witness and the refusal of the sheriff to allow counsel to see the accused, not amounting to attacks upon any law as being unconstitutional but merely involves application of the facts of the case to unquestioned and unambiguous provisions of the State and Federal Constitutions, requiring no further construction by this court, the Court of Appeals and not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction of this writ *613 of error. Code Ann. §§ 2-3704, 2-3708 (Constitution of 1945); Dade County v. State of Georgia, 201 Ga. 241 (39 SE2d 473); Jackson v. State, 203 Ga. 570 (47 SE2d 588); Stanley v. Amos, 204 Ga. 652 (51 SE2d 395); Boyett v. State, 205 Ga. 370 (53 SE2d 919); Sellers v. State, 207 Ga. 249 (61 SE2d 145).

Submitted January 9, 1962 Decided February 8, 1962. Al Jennings, for plaintiff in error. George D. Lawrence, Solicitor-General, Eugene Cook, Attorney-General, contra.

Transferred to the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 S.E.2d 73, 217 Ga. 612, 1962 Ga. LEXIS 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrold-v-state-ga-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack