Lowe v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Lowe v. State

177 S.E. 240, 179 Ga. 742, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 390

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 16, 1934

DocketNo. 10419

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 177 S.E. 240 (Lowe 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

Lowe v. State, 177 S.E. 240, 179 Ga. 742, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 390 (Ga. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Kussell, C. J.

From the language employed in section 1068 of the Penal Code of 1910 it must be presumed that the General Assembly used the words employed in their ordinary, every-day, common-sense meaning, and that in referring to the previous conviction they had no reference to convictions in States beyond the jurisdiction of Georgia and of the courts of their State. The courts of Georgia do not take judicial cognizance of the laws of these foreign jurisdictions, and therefore we can not attribute to our General Assembly an intention to give equal dignity to proof of a conviction in another jurisdiction to that which properly inheres in those of our own State, when it may be that' in many of these States important rules of procedure, in criminal trials, are entirely different from those which our legislature has adopted for our government. Whenever the General Assembly of Georgia declares, in express terms, that a conviction in any State shall have the effect prescribed by the statute, instead of a conviction in Georgia, as the statute must now be construed, it will be time enough to consider the question of unconstitutionality. The question asked by the Court of Appeals must be answered in the negative.

All the Justices concur.

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

Kussell, C. J.

From the language employed in section 1068 of the Penal Code of 1910 it must be presumed that the General Assembly used the words employed in their ordinary, every-day, common-sense meaning, and that in referring to the previous conviction they had no reference to convictions in States beyond the jurisdiction of Georgia and of the courts of their State. The courts of Georgia do not take judicial cognizance of the laws of these foreign jurisdictions, and therefore we can not attribute to our General Assembly an intention to give equal dignity to proof of a conviction in another jurisdiction to that which properly inheres in those of our own State, when it may be that' in many of these States important rules of procedure, in criminal trials, are entirely different from those which our legislature has adopted for our government. Whenever the General Assembly of Georgia declares, in express terms, that a conviction in any State shall have the effect prescribed by the statute, instead of a conviction in Georgia, as the statute must now be construed, it will be time enough to consider the question of unconstitutionality. The question asked by the Court of Appeals must be answered in the negative.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 S.E. 240, 179 Ga. 742, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lowe-v-state-ga-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack