Case Name: Butler v. The State
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1896-01-27
Citations: 97 Ga. 404
Docket Number: 
Parties: Butler v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 97
Pages: 404–404

Head Matter:
Butler v. The State.
January 27, 1896.
Accusation of carrying concealed weapon. Before Judge Williamson. Oity court of Monroe county. October term, 1895.
After conviction, defendant moved for a new trial on tlie ground, among others, that tbe court erred in not allowing him to withdraw his waiver of indictment and his waiver of trial by jury. The accusation was drawn on the 5th of October, defendant being in court. líe had no counsel at the time; the court offered to appoint him counsel, which he refused; and upon being asked the usual questions, in reference to whether he demanded indictment and trial by jury, he answered declining to demand either; all his rights as to these matters being fully made known and explained to him. The case was then set for hearing on the 12th of October, when the court appointed Mr. Berner as counsel to defend him. Said counsel then moved to withdraw the waiver already made, for the purpose of demanding an indictment and a trial by jury, or, in any event, a trial by jury. The motion was overruled.
R. L. Berner, by Glenn & Rountree, for plaintiff in error. O. H. B. Bloodworth, solicitor-general, by Ander- ■ son, Felder & Davis, contra.'

Opinion:
Atkinson, J.
1. Where, upon, being arraigned on an accusation in a city court, the accused waived being indicted by the grand jury, he cannot thereafter in that court withdraw this waiver, but must go to trial upon the accusation.
2. Although when such case was first called the accused declined to have counsel appointed to defend him and also waived his right to be tried by a jury, the court could, with propriety, upon a subsequent day appoint counsel for the accused; and when this was done, and such counsel promptly moved to withdraw the previous waiver of trial by jury, the motion should have been granted, it not appearing that the State's counsel made any point as to delay, or otherwise insisted that the granting of the motion would result in any prejudice to the State. See Brown et al. v. The State, 89 Ga. 340, and authorities there cited. Judgment reversed.