Quinn v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Quinn v. State

140 S.E. 366, 165 Ga. 258, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 368

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 22, 1927

DocketNo. 6264

StatusPublished

This text of 140 S.E. 366 (Quinn 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

Quinn v. State, 140 S.E. 366, 165 Ga. 258, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 368 (Ga. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

The accused was sentenced to be electrocuted. After a careful examination, we find no- errors of law and no- cause for a reversal of the judgment refusing a new trial. This is a court for the correction of errors at law, and not for the mere retrial of cases. In these circumstances we are bound to affirm the judgment; but in doing so we feel bound to say that the death penalty seems, under the evidence, to be extreme. The fixing of the sentence was wholly within the province of the jury, and only the trial judge had the discretion to grant a new trial because of the extreme penalty.- It is not within our .constitutional power to grant clemency. That power rests with the chief executive. [259]*259These views are expressed of our owu motion, and not in response to any request of counsel for the condemned man.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Gilbert, J.

The accused was sentenced to be electrocuted. After a careful examination, we find no- errors of law and no- cause for a reversal of the judgment refusing a new trial. This is a court for the correction of errors at law, and not for the mere retrial of cases. In these circumstances we are bound to affirm the judgment; but in doing so we feel bound to say that the death penalty seems, under the evidence, to be extreme. The fixing of the sentence was wholly within the province of the jury, and only the trial judge had the discretion to grant a new trial because of the extreme penalty.- It is not within our .constitutional power to grant clemency. That power rests with the chief executive. [259]*259These views are expressed of our owu motion, and not in response to any request of counsel for the condemned man.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 S.E. 366, 165 Ga. 258, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quinn-v-state-ga-1927.