TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Nolan v. State

John H. Nolan, in error v. The State of Georgia, in error

Nolan v. State, 53 Ga. 137 (1874)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Georgia · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 15, 1874
Judges
Warner
Citations
53 Ga. 137
Headnotes
1. Consent of counsel that should the jury agree that night, they might return a sealed verdict to the clerk and disperse, cannot be construed to extend to a verdict found on the next day. 2. It was the legal right of the defendant to be present when the verdict was rendered, and had a motion to set aside such verdict been made on the ground of his absence, it should have been granted. 3. It has never been the practice of the courts of this State to require the fact of the defendant’s presence at the time of the rendition of the verdict, to be entered on the record, and made a part thereof. The absence of such entry is therefore no ground for arresting the judgment.
Summary
Criminal law. Verdict. Practice in the Superior Court. Eecord. Before Judge Schley. Chatham Superior Court. November Special Term, 1874. For the facts of this case, see the decision.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Warner

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Warner, Chief Justice.

1. The defendant was indicted for'.the offense of murder, and on the trial thereof, the jury returned a verdict finding him guilty of voluntary manslaughter. ■ When the jury were out the night before the verdict was returned, the defendant’s counsel consented that if the jury should agree that night they could return a sealed verdict to'the clerk and disperse. The jury did hot agree upon a verdict that night, but on the next day brought in their verdict, which was received in the absence of the defendant and his counsel. The defendant made a motion in arrest of judgment on that ground, which motion was overruled by the court, and the defendant excepted. The consent of the counsel cannot fairly- be construed to extend to the next day, especially in a criminal case;

*138

2. That it was the legal right-of the defendant to have been present when the verdict was rendered by the jury, we entertain no doubt, and if a motion had been made to set aside the verdict on the ground of his absence, that motion should have been granted by the court. The defendant, however, did not make a motion to set aside the verdict, but made a motion in arrest of judgment. The 4629th section of the Code declares that no motion in arrest of judgment shall be sustained for any matter not affecting the real merits of the offense charged in the indictment. A motion in arrest of judgment is predicated on some.defect which appears on the tace of the record or pleadings.

3. It has never been the practice of the courts of this state, so far as we know or are advised, to require that the fact of the defendant’s presence at the time of the rendition of the verdict, should be entered on the record, and made a part thereof. If the defendant is not present when the verdict is rendered, that is a fact extrinsic of the record, and may be shown on a motion to set aside the verdict for that reason.

Let the judgment of the court below be affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1877–1878: 21881–1882: 11903–1904: 21907–1908: 11913–1914: 11917–1918: 11919–1920: 11935–1936: 11959–1960: 118772026peak 1877 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Frank v. State83 S.E. 645 (Ga. 1914)
  2. Barton v. State67 Ga. 653 (1881)
  3. The PEOPLE v. Nelson164 N.E.2d 16 (Ill. 1960)
  4. Crymes v. State182 S.E. 856 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935)
  5. Cawthon v. State46 S.E. 897 (Ga. 1904)
  6. Bagwell v. State58 S.E. 650 (Ga. 1907)

Most recent

  1. The PEOPLE v. Nelson164 N.E.2d 16 (Ill. 1960)
  2. Crymes v. State182 S.E. 856 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935)
  3. Brown v. State104 S.E. 428 (Ga. 1920)
  4. Mills v. State97 S.E. 408 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918)
  5. Frank v. State83 S.E. 645 (Ga. 1914)
  6. Bagwell v. State58 S.E. 650 (Ga. 1907)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list