Massey v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Massey v. State

52 S.E. 78, 124 Ga. 24, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 636

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 8, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 52 S.E. 78 (Massey 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

Massey v. State, 52 S.E. 78, 124 Ga. 24, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 636 (Ga. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Cobb, P. J.

The name of the juror upon the list as furnished the prisoner was Neal J. White. The name appearing in the indictment was N. J. White. With the indictment and the list both before the counsel for the accused, the fact that a juror appeared in each whose initials'were the same was sufficient to put him upon inquiry as to whether it was the same person in each list. By the exercise of the very slightest diligence this fact could have been ascertained before the juror was accepted. That the prisoner and his counsel did not know the fact until after the verdict is no sufficient reason for granting a new trial, unless it appears they could not have discovered the existence of the fact by the exercise of ordinary diligence. Burns v. State, 80 Ga. 544; Jones v. State, 95 Ga. 497.

The evidence authorized, even if it did not demand the verdict, and it was not error to refuse to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Cobb, P. J.

The name of the juror upon the list as furnished the prisoner was Neal J. White. The name appearing in the indictment was N. J. White. With the indictment and the list both before the counsel for the accused, the fact that a juror appeared in each whose initials'were the same was sufficient to put him upon inquiry as to whether it was the same person in each list. By the exercise of the very slightest diligence this fact could have been ascertained before the juror was accepted. That the prisoner and his counsel did not know the fact until after the verdict is no sufficient reason for granting a new trial, unless it appears they could not have discovered the existence of the fact by the exercise of ordinary diligence. Burns v. State, 80 Ga. 544; Jones v. State, 95 Ga. 497.

The evidence authorized, even if it did not demand the verdict, and it was not error to refuse to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 S.E. 78, 124 Ga. 24, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/massey-v-state-ga-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack