Case Name: JOINER v. THE STATE
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1941-10-22
Citations: 66 Ga. App. 106
Docket Number: 29265
Parties: JOINER v. THE STATE.
Judges: Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 66
Pages: 106–107

Head Matter:
29265.
JOINER v. THE STATE.
Decided October 22, 1941.
J ohn F. Brannen, for plaintiff in error.
B. H..Ramsey, solicitor, contra.

Opinion:
Gardner, J.
The defendant was convicted in the city court of Statesboro of the offense of abandonment. He moved for a new trial on the usual general grounds and by amendment on five additional grounds. The court overruled the motion, and the defendant excepted.
Special grounds 1 and 2 assign error because of the admission of evidence to prove the allegations of the accusation, for the reason that the defendant had been illegally arrested and was not legally within the custody of the court for trial. Grounds 3 and 4 complain because the court failed to charge that if the accused had been illegally arrested and brought into court for trial, the jury should acquit him regardless of the sufficiency of the evidence produced, on the ground that the court, because of the illegal arrest, was without authority to try the defendant. So far as these four grounds are involved, and so far as the general grounds are concerned with this point, we will treat them together. "The manner in which accused is brought before the court . . is ordinarily immaterial in so far as jurisdiction over him is concerned." 22 0. J. S. 236, § 144. Humphrey v. State, 46 Ga. App. 720 (169 S. E. 53); Ham v. State, 22 Ala. App. 582 (118 So. 241); People v. Groves, 63 Cal. App. 709 (219 Pac. 1033). "The illegal arrest of one charged with crime is no bar to his prosecution if all other elements necessary to give a court jurisdiction to try accused are present." Commonwealth v. Gorman, 288 Mass. 294 (192 N. E. 618, 96 A. L. R. 977). "A conviction in such a case [is] unaffected by such unlawful arrest." 22 C. J. S. 237, § 144; People v. Decker, 156 Misc. 156 (282 N. Y. Supp. 176). We think Humphrey v. State, supra, correctly sets out the general rule, and that which is controlling in the present case.
Headnotes 2 and 3 need no elaboration.
Judgment affirmed.
Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.