Case ID: ga-app_73/html/0049-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Gardner, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

31037.
    COWART v. THE STATE.
    Decided October 12, 1945.
    
      
      R. N. Odum, II. IN Elders, for plaintiff in error.
    
      R. L. Carr, solicitor, contra.
   Gardner, J.

There being sufficient evidence to sustain the-verdict of the jury, this court is without authority to disturb the-verdict.

As to the contention that the judge struck out certain printed matter from the printed form of the verdict, and left the words,. “We, the jury, find the within named defendant guilty,” we do not. think that there is merit in such contention, for the reasons: (1) there was no objection to the form of the verdict at the time of its rendition, as required; and (2) the judge properly charged the-jury as to the form of the verdict, as shown in the amended motion for new trial. As to (1), in Evans v. Rogers, 1 Ga. 463, it was-decided that, where no objection is made at the time a verdict is rendered, the fact that there has been an irregularity in the verdict is no ground for setting it aside. Eegarding this point, the trial judge, in his judgment refusing a new trial, said: “I do not believe that the facts recited in the amendment to the motion relative to the printed word ‘guilty’ being left in the skeleton form, of verdict had any influence one way or the other upon the jury in considering . . their verdict.” The jury did not leave the-word “guilty” printed in the form as the only affirmative evidence of their verdict, but wrote in the word guilty in pencil, thus showing that it was their intention to return the verdict of guilty. They ignored the word as printed in the form. In view of this act on the part of the jury, coupled with the fact that the judge-did not consider that the defendant had been harmed, and that no objection was made at the proper time, and in view of the fact, that the verdict returned was a correct one according to the views of the jurors and of the trial judge, this ground is without merits

The trial judge did not err in denying the motion foT a new-trial for any of the reasons assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.