Nickles v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Nickles v. State

71 S.E.2d 574, 86 Ga. App. 284, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 936

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 11, 1952

Docket34108

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 71 S.E.2d 574 (Nickles 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

Nickles v. State, 71 S.E.2d 574, 86 Ga. App. 284, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 936 (Ga. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Carlisle, J.

1. Under Code i 6-701 no cause shall be carried to the Court of Appeals upon any bill of exceptions, so long as the same is pending in the court below, unless the decision or judgment complained of, if it had been rendered as claimed by the plaintiff in error, would have been a final disposition of the cause, or final as to some material party thereto. The mere passing of an order declaring a mistrial terminates the trial, but is not a final decision in the cause as the cause itself is still left pending for trial in the court below. Oliveros v. State, 118 Ga. 776 (45 S. E. 596); Starnes v. State, 138 Ga. 341 (75 S. E. 104); and

2. An exception to the refusal of a motion for change of venue, based solely on the ground that the defendant can not obtain a fair trial in fhe county in which he is under indictment, can not form the basis of a direct bill of exceptions to the Court of Appeals prior to a final judgment in the case. Hubbard v. State, 208 Ga. 472, 473 (67 S. E. 2d, 562); and

3. There having been no final judgment in the case so as to give this court jurisdiction, but merely the grant of a mistrial, leaving the indictment still pending in the court below, the defendant’s direct bill of exceptions, based solely upon the trial court’s refusal to grant a change of venue on his motion that he can not obtain a fair trial in that county, is premature, and must accordingly on motion be dismissed. However, permission is hereby granted, if counsel for the defendant so desires, to have this direct bill of exceptions filed and treated as an exception pendente lite so that the error assigned upon the trial court’s judgment may be ultimately passed upon and determined by this court, and the trial court is so directed.

Writ of error dismissed with direction.

Gardner, P.J., and Townsend, J., concur. Harris, Chance & McCracken, for plaintiff in error. George Hains, Solicitor-General, E. D. Fulcher, contra.

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

Carlisle, J.

1. Under Code i 6-701 no cause shall be carried to the Court of Appeals upon any bill of exceptions, so long as the same is pending in the court below, unless the decision or judgment complained of, if it had been rendered as claimed by the plaintiff in error, would have been a final disposition of the cause, or final as to some material party thereto. The mere passing of an order declaring a mistrial terminates the trial, but is not a final decision in the cause as the cause itself is still left pending for trial in the court below. Oliveros v. State, 118 Ga. 776 (45 S. E. 596); Starnes v. State, 138 Ga. 341 (75 S. E. 104); and

2. An exception to the refusal of a motion for change of venue, based solely on the ground that the defendant can not obtain a fair trial in fhe county in which he is under indictment, can not form the basis of a direct bill of exceptions to the Court of Appeals prior to a final judgment in the case. Hubbard v. State, 208 Ga. 472, 473 (67 S. E. 2d, 562); and

3. There having been no final judgment in the case so as to give this court jurisdiction, but merely the grant of a mistrial, leaving the indictment still pending in the court below, the defendant’s direct bill of exceptions, based solely upon the trial court’s refusal to grant a change of venue on his motion that he can not obtain a fair trial in that county, is premature, and must accordingly on motion be dismissed. However, permission is hereby granted, if counsel for the defendant so desires, to have this direct bill of exceptions filed and treated as an exception pendente lite so that the error assigned upon the trial court’s judgment may be ultimately passed upon and determined by this court, and the trial court is so directed.

Writ of error dismissed with direction.

Gardner, P.J., and Townsend, J., concur. Harris, Chance & McCracken, for plaintiff in error. George Hains, Solicitor-General, E. D. Fulcher, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 S.E.2d 574, 86 Ga. App. 284, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nickles-v-state-gactapp-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack