Wilson v. State

4 S.E.2d 688, 60 Ga. App. 641, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 124
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 22, 1939
Docket27770
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 4 S.E.2d 688 (Wilson 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
Wilson v. State, 4 S.E.2d 688, 60 Ga. App. 641, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 124 (Ga. Ct. App. 1939).

Opinion

Guerry, J.

1. While a defendant in a misdemeanor case on an accusation or indictment may waive trial by jury (Logan v. State, 86 Ga. 266, 12 S. E. 406; Moore v. State, 124 Ga. 30, 52 S. E. 81), and can not complain after trial and conviction of a denial of the right (Lamar v. Prosser, 121 Ga. 153 (3), 48 S. E. 977); nevertheless, at any time on or before trial, he may revoke the waiver, provided he acts timely and in such season “as not substantially to delay or impede the cause of justice” (Cain v. State, 102 Ga. 610, 612, 29 S. E. 426), and especially where the State makes no point as to delay or prejudice (Brown v. State, 89 Ga. 340, 15 S. E. 462; Butler v. State, 97 Ga. 404, 23 S. E. 822).

2. In the instant case, though the fact of waiver of trial by jury was in question, yet, granting that a valid waiver was made, it appears that on arraignment on Monday following the arrest of the defendant on the day previous, without bail, the defendant, on being advised by the court that the court would try him on the next succeeding Monday without a jury, promptly employed counsel, who immediately notified the sheriff, since the court had already adjourned, that the defendant desired to be tried by a jury, and also, on the next Monday, entered with the court a written demand for a trial by a jury. It fs disclosed that while no jury was present on the call of the case, yet a jury would have been in attendance the following day; and that the State made no point that delay would have been prejudicial to the State. The court erred in trying the defendant without a jury, and in denying the motion for new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Related

Maxwell v. State
41 S.W.3d 402 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2001)
People v. Miller
149 Misc. 2d 554 (New York Supreme Court, 1990)
Fleming v. State
229 S.E.2d 800 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)
Stevenson v. State
324 N.E.2d 509 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1975)
State v. Jones
312 A.2d 281 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1973)
Brumbalow v. State
197 S.E.2d 380 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1973)
Floyd v. State
90 So. 2d 105 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1956)
People v. Melton
271 P.2d 962 (California Court of Appeal, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 S.E.2d 688, 60 Ga. App. 641, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-state-gactapp-1939.