Legal Opinion

Harris v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided November 11, 1941No. 13771PublishedCited by 85 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

1. In order to sustain a plea of former jeopardy, it is always incumbent upon the defendant to plead and prove that the transaction charged in the second indictment is the same as a matter of fact as that charged in the first indictment under which he was put in jeopardy. In addition to pleading and proving that the transaction is the same as a matter of fact, it is also necessary to plead and prove: either (a) that the transaction charged in the second indictment is an offense which is identical in law with that charged in the first indictment, or else that under the actual terms of the…

2Cases cited58 opinions

  1. United States v. OppenheimerSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  2. Coffey v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  3. People v. ColtrinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Watson v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1902
  5. Roberts v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1853

53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by85 opinions

  1. Hoag v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  2. State v. EstevezSupreme Court of Georgia · 1974
  3. Pryor v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1977
  4. Commonwealth v. HudeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  5. Loomis v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1948

80 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API