Rodgers v. State
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Powell, J.
If we could properly pass upon the merits of the' case we would unhesitatingly grant a new trial; the evidence was clearly insufficient to support a conviction. See, in this connection, Johnson v. State, ante, 182, 58 S. E. 265 . However, so far as this court can judicially know, the defendant has never been convicted. This court, as well as the superior court, must in certiorari cases look exclusively to the answer for such information. The answer is wholly silent as to the jurisdictional fact that there has been a final verdict or judgment in the trial court. The applicant for certiorari should have made exceptions to the answer; but he failed to do so. This is fatal. This proposition is too plainly and definitely established to allow the slightest judicial evasion of it, even though the defendant be innocent. Manning v. Gainesville, 125 Ga. 239 , 53 S. E. 1002 ; Colbert v. State, 118 Ga. 305 , 45 S. E. 403 ; Little v. Fort Valley, 123 Ga. 503 , 51 S. E. 501 ; Landrum v. Moss, 1 Ga. App. 216 , 57 S. E. 965 .
Judgment affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.