Home/Supreme Court of Georgia/Parris v. State

Parris v. State

54 S.E. 751, 125 Ga. 777, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 268
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 3, 1906
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 54 S.E. 751 (Parris 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
Parris v. State, 54 S.E. 751, 125 Ga. 777, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 268 (Ga. 1906).

Opinion

Cobb, P. J.

1. A juror incompetent propter defectum is made specially - competent by tbe act of the parties in allowing him to serve without challenge, and a verdict will not be set aside for such cause. Jordan v. State, 119 Ga. 443.

2. The provisions of Penal Code, §811, declaring that certain county officers shall be incompetent to serve as grand jurors during their. respective terms of office, create a disqualification propter defectum.

3. A grand juror disqualified propter defectum must be challenged by the accused before the finding of the indictment, unless it appears that he did not have full notice or opportunity to make the challenge at that time. Folds v. State, 123 Ga. 167(2).

4. When the accused seeks, after the finding of the indictment, to raise the objection that one of the grand jurors was disqualified propter defectum, it is incumbent upon him to show that he did not have an opportunity to raise the objection before the indictment was found. Lascelles v. State, 90 Ga. 372 (3) ; Edwards v. State, 121 Ga. 591(2) ; Simpson v. State, 110 Ga. 249.

5. When the accused has been arrested upon a warrant charging him with an offense, and has been committed to await the action of the grand jury or has given bond for his appearance, he is apprised of the fact that his case will undergo investigation, and it is incumbent upon him to raise objections to the competency of the grand jurors before they find an indictment against him. Turner v. State, 78 Ga. 174(1); Fisher v. State, 93 Ga. 309 (1).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent. Indictment for assault and battery. Before Judge Wright. Chattooga superior court. March 28, 1906. G. D. Rivers, for plaintiff in error. W. H. Ennis, solicitor-general, and W. B. Shaw, contra.

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

Related

Jones v. State
658 S.E.2d 386 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2008)
Rogers v. State
543 S.E.2d 81 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2000)
Vaughn v. State
327 S.E.2d 747 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1985)
Sullivan v. State
271 S.E.2d 823 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1980)
Gunn v. State
264 S.E.2d 862 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1980)
Mydell v. State
233 S.E.2d 199 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1977)
Holsey v. State
219 S.E.2d 374 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1975)
Reece v. State
82 S.E.2d 10 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1954)
Hawkins v. State
72 S.E.2d 778 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
Lindsey v. State
194 S.E. 833 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1938)
Long v. State
127 S.E. 842 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1925)
Payne v. State
114 S.E. 226 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Lumpkin v. State
109 S.E. 664 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1921)
Cook v. State
97 S.E. 264 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)
West v. State
91 S.E. 216 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Evans v. State
86 S.E. 286 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1915)
Brooks v. State
76 S.E. 765 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1912)
Daniel v. State
76 S.E. 162 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1912)
Brown v. State
69 S.E. 37 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1910)
Tucker v. State
68 S.E. 786 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 S.E. 751, 125 Ga. 777, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parris-v-state-ga-1906.