Case Name: FIRST NATIONAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY IN MACON et al. v. THE STATE
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1976-06-22
Citations: 237 Ga. 112
Docket Number: 31119
Parties: FIRST NATIONAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY IN MACON et al. v. THE STATE.
Judges: All the Justices concur, except Gunter and Ingram, JJ., who concur specially.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 237
Pages: 112–115

Head Matter:
31119.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY IN MACON et al. v. THE STATE.

Opinion:
Hall, Justice.
We granted the petitioners' application for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals holding that a superior court does not have jurisdiction to hold a commitment hearing after indictment. See First National Bank & Trust Co. in Macon v. State, 137 Ga. App. 760 (1976).
The petitioners contend the Court of Appeals erred in not passing upon the merits of their appeal from an order of the court committing them to trial on an indictment for theft of personal property. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals, but we do so for a different reason.
"The . 'purpose of a commitment hearing is simply to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the accused guilty of the crime charged, and if so, to bind him over for indictment by the grand jury. Code § 27-407.' " State v. Middlebrooks, 236 Ga. 52, 54 (222 SE2d 343) (1976). The same rule applies in the federal courts. See 8 Moore's Federal Practice: Rules of Criminal Procedure, § 5.1.02 (1975); 1 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 80, pp. 134-143 (1969). Once a grand jury has indicted, the state is not required to make a further showing of probable cause. While the trial court has the authority to quash an indictment for defects appearing on its face (Daniel v. State, 63 Ga. App. 12 (10 SE2d 80) (1940)), it has no authority to quash the indictment on the issue of an alleged lack of probable cause. The decision of the committing court "... settles nothing as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant." Hyden v. State, 40 Ga. 476, 478 (1869). The latter issue can only be determined in a trial by the jury, by the court where a jury is waived, or by the court on a motion for directed verdict.
Argued June 14, 1976
Decided June 22, 1976.
Knight, Perry & Franklin, Jones, Cork, Miller & Benton, Frank C. Jones, Timothy K. Adams, H. Jerome Strickland, for appellants.
Vickers Neugent, District Attorney, for appellee.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur, except Gunter and Ingram, JJ., who concur specially.