Court Opinion

ID: 9765703
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:14:55.480579+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:14.099911
License: Public Domain

ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING.
DAVIDSON, Judge.
In its motion for rehearing, supported by able oral presentation, the state insists that we erred in the conclusion reached originally.
In the light of that contention, the question has been again investigated. We remain convinced that the May 1949 session was a special session of the district court and, on account of the new statute, the grand jury drawn was usable only for the next succeeding new term of court in September, 1949.
Under such conclusion, it is apparent that the utilization of the previously drawn grand jury at the special session was unwarranted.
We can appreciate the difficult position the trial court was in when this question was presented to him upon the trial of the case. It must be remembered, however, that this situation arose by reason of the act of the legislature, which, being valid, must control.
The state’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.