Smith v. State

Smith v. State, 143 S.E. 925 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928)

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided: July 10, 1928
Docket: No. 19027
Judges: Bloodworth
Citations: 143 S.E. 92538 Ga. App. 3661928 Ga. App. LEXIS 237

Opinion of the Court — Bloodworth

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

Bloodworth, J.

Two accusations were filed against the accused. By agreement these cases were tried together.

During the trial and after the judge had commenced to charge the jury the solicitor-general discovered that one of the jurors selected to try the- cases was an uncle of the defendant, and he made-a motion that a mistrial be declared on account of this relationship. The mistrial was declared. Later the accused filed a plea of former jeopardy, insisting that at the time the mistrial was declared he was in jeopardy, and that the legal effect of declaring the mistrial over his objection amounted to his acquittal. Under the facts of this case and the principle announced in Cambron v. State, 36 Ga. App. 784 (2), 785 ( 138 S. E. 280 ), the court did not err in declaring a mistrial or in striking the plea of former jeopardy. See also Cambron v. State, 164 Ga. 111 (2), 112 ( 137 S. E. 780 ); Rittenberry v. State, 30 Ga. App. 289, 291 ( 117 S. E. 765 ).

Of the two accusations filed against the accused, one charged him with selling intoxicating liquor on the 15th day of October, 1927, and the other alleged that on the same date he did have and control intoxicating liquor. By agreement these eases were tried together. There was a verdict of guilty of selling intoxicating liquor, and one of not guilty of possessing intoxicating liquor. There was but one trial; thé evidence was necessarily the same in both cases, and it showed but one transaction. Under the principle announced in Kuck v. State, 149 Ga. 191 ( 99 S. E. 622 ), and in Britt v. State, 36 Ga. App. 668 ( 137 S. E. 791 ), the verdict finding the accused guilty of selling intoxicating liquor is repugnant to the one finding him not guilty of possessing intoxicating liquor, and is void. The facts of this case differentiate it from the case of Phillips v. State, 27 Ga. App. 1 ( 107 S. E. 343 ).

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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 →

Relies on it most ⓘ

The People v. Hairston263 N.E.2d 840 (Ill. 1970)
State v. Armijo2 P.2d 1075 (N.M. 1931)
Ansley v. State185 S.E.2d 562 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971)
Williams v. State111 Ga. App. 588 (1965)
Williams v. State142 S.E.2d 409 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965)
Davis v. State157 S.E. 888 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931)

Most recent

Ansley v. State185 S.E.2d 562 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971)
The People v. Hairston263 N.E.2d 840 (Ill. 1970)
Colley v. State143 S.E.2d 59 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965)
Williams v. State142 S.E.2d 409 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965)
Williams v. State111 Ga. App. 588 (1965)
Hand v. State83 S.E.2d 276 (Ga. Ct. App. 1954)

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 6

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Kuck v. State, 99 S.E. 622 (Ga. 1919)	45
	Cambron v. State, 137 S.E. 780 (Ga. 1927)	17
	Phillips v. State, 107 S.E. 343 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921)	10
	Britt v. State, 137 S.E. 791 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927)	8
	Cambron v. State, 138 S.E. 280 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927)	6
	Rittenberry v. State, 117 S.E. 765 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923)	3

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list