Sutton v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sutton v. State

130 S.E. 346, 34 Ga. App. 492, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 342

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 10, 1925

Docket16649

StatusPublished

This text of 130 S.E. 346 (Sutton 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

Sutton v. State, 130 S.E. 346, 34 Ga. App. 492, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 342 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. The defendant was convicted of simple larceny. He was found in possession of certain property proven to have been stolen. Under proper instructions from the court and a sufficiency of evidence to warrant the finding, the jury concluded that he did not satisfactorily explain his possession of the stolen property. This court will not disturb the verdict.

2. There was no error in the court’s refusal to continue the case because of an absent witness. Two other witnesses for the defendant testified to the same state of facts to which the absent witness, according to the contention of the defendant, would have testified had she been present.

3. Upon a poll of the jury one juror said the verdict “was not freely and voluntarily made, but I agreed to it after awhile.” Upon further and thorough questioning the juror stated that no force or coercion was used on him to procure his agreement to the verdict, and that he did agree and consent to the verdict. This is no cause for a new trial. “If a juror agrees to a verdict, that in law is sufficient. If verdicts are to be set aside because some of the jurors agree to them reluctantly, very few verdicts in important cases would be allowed to stand. The law does not enquire as to the degree of reluctance or willingness with which a juror’s mind assents to the verdict. Its only enquiry is, does he agree to it? If he does, that is sufficient.”. Parker v. State, 81 Ga. 334 (5) (6 S. E. 601). In the case under consideration the juror was given an opportunity to state, and the court an opportunity to know, the reason why the juror did not freely and voluntarily agree to the verdict, and what was meant by the statement in question. This fact is what distinguishes it from the case of Ponder v. State, 11 Ga. App. 60 (74 S. E. 715), cited by plaintiff in error.

4. It suffices to say that there is no merit in the other special grounds of ■the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur. Hightower & New, for plaintiff in error. Fred Kea, solicitor-general, contra.

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

Luke, J.

1. The defendant was convicted of simple larceny. He was found in possession of certain property proven to have been stolen. Under proper instructions from the court and a sufficiency of evidence to warrant the finding, the jury concluded that he did not satisfactorily explain his possession of the stolen property. This court will not disturb the verdict.

2. There was no error in the court’s refusal to continue the case because of an absent witness. Two other witnesses for the defendant testified to the same state of facts to which the absent witness, according to the contention of the defendant, would have testified had she been present.

3. Upon a poll of the jury one juror said the verdict “was not freely and voluntarily made, but I agreed to it after awhile.” Upon further and thorough questioning the juror stated that no force or coercion was used on him to procure his agreement to the verdict, and that he did agree and consent to the verdict. This is no cause for a new trial. “If a juror agrees to a verdict, that in law is sufficient. If verdicts are to be set aside because some of the jurors agree to them reluctantly, very few verdicts in important cases would be allowed to stand. The law does not enquire as to the degree of reluctance or willingness with which a juror’s mind assents to the verdict. Its only enquiry is, does he agree to it? If he does, that is sufficient.”. Parker v. State, 81 Ga. 334 (5) (6 S. E. 601). In the case under consideration the juror was given an opportunity to state, and the court an opportunity to know, the reason why the juror did not freely and voluntarily agree to the verdict, and what was meant by the statement in question. This fact is what distinguishes it from the case of Ponder v. State, 11 Ga. App. 60 (74 S. E. 715), cited by plaintiff in error.

4. It suffices to say that there is no merit in the other special grounds of ■the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur. Hightower & New, for plaintiff in error. Fred Kea, solicitor-general, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 S.E. 346, 34 Ga. App. 492, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutton-v-state-gactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack