Smith v. State

97 S.E. 624, 23 Ga. App. 130, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 82
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided December 3, 1918·No. 9951·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Broyles, P. J.

"1. Upon the trial of a misdemeanor ease in the city court of Dublin the defendant, before arraignment and before pleading to the merits of the case, has a right to demand a jury of twelve, but he has not the right to demand a'panel of twenty-four jurors from' which to strike the jury. 6a. Laws, 1904, pp. 140-144, sec. 4 (p. 143). See also, in this connection, Conyers v. Graham, 81 Ga. 615 (4) (8 S. E. 521); Mattox v. State, 115 Ga. 212, 214 (41 S. E. 709). Under this ruling the amendment to the motion for a new trial is without merit.

2. The general grounds of the motion for a new trial, not having been referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, are treated as abandoned. . •

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworlh, J., concurs. Stephens, J., not presiding.

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

Smith v. State, 97 S.E. 624, 23 Ga. App. 130, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 82 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

97 S.E. 624 (Smith v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Willis v. State
178 S.E.2d 737 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1970)