Case ID: ga-app_24/html/0711-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Luke, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

11014.
    Hill v. The State.
    Decided January 28, 1920.
    Certiorari; from Putnam superior court—Judge Park. September 20, 1919.
    Yiola Hill was convicted in the county court under an indictment which charged that she "did, by cursing and using profane and obscene language [and] by being intoxicated, interrupt and disturb a congregation of persons lawfully assembled for divine service at Flat Rock Baptist Church.” She sued out certiorari, alleging that the judgment was contrary to law and the evidence. The judge’s answer was as follows: “Answering the certiorari in the above case, I have this to say: • The witnesses Burl Briscoe and Jesse Williams both swore that Yiola Hill was drunk. They both swore that she rode up immediately in front of the church, my recollection is not more than 20 feet from the door, where she said in a loud voice,4 I’m drinking my own liquor to-day and don’t care a damn, who knows it;’ that her husband tried to get her ta leave the church, that she refused to go, and he shot her. I believed beyond a reasonable doubt, and still believe, that she and her husband were both drunk, and that each one of them disturbed the congregation assembled for divine service, especially those people who were standing outside the church, near the door. These two witnesses testified that her conduct, and owing to her intoxicated condition and loudness of her voice, must have disturbed people in the church, that there were some standing near the door on the outside of the church that were obliged to have been disturbed. The testimony of Dr. Griffith, Jeff Lewis, and Yiola Hill’s statement is about right.” From the petition it appears that Dr. Griffith testified that soon after the shooting referred to, he cut a bullet from Yiola Hill’s arm, and she did not appear to have been drunk. Jeff Lewis testified thajt she was not drunk and did not disturb any one, and did not interrupt or disturb in any way the services that day, and that when she was shot she was in the road about 50 or 60 feet from the church. The defendant, in her statement, denied that she was drunk, or interrupted or disturbed any part of the congregation.
   Luke, J.

In order to authorize the conviction of one charged in an indictment with having disturbed a congregation of persons lawfully assembled for divine service, by cursing, by using profane and obscene language, and by being intoxicated, it is necessary to show that there was a lawful assembly of persons engaged in divine service as alleged in the indictment, and that, in the manner charged, some person of the congregation so assembled was actually disturbed. The evidence in this case did not authorize the conviction of the defendant. It was error for the court to overrule her certiorari and not grant her a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodioorth, J,, concur.

Davidson, Callatvay & DeJarnette, for plaintiff in error.

Doyle Campbell, solicitor-general, contra.