Reddick v. State
Supreme Court of Georgia
The Court of Appeals certified the following questions (Case No. 10404) : “The exceptions pendente lite in this case (omitting formal parts) are as follows: '(1) That at the September term, 1918, of Putnam superior court, he [the defendant] was convicted for the violation of the prohibition law, in that he was convicted for operating a still and illegally making and manufacturing whiskey.
Read the full summary
The Court of Appeals certified the following questions (Case No. 10404) : “The exceptions pendente lite in this case (omitting formal parts) are as follows: '(1) That at the September term, 1918, of Putnam superior court, he [the defendant] was convicted for the violation of the prohibition law, in that he was convicted for operating a still and illegally making and manufacturing whiskey. (2) That upon the call of said case there was no formal arraignment nor plea entered; and that after a jury had been empaneled and the State’s first witness was upon direct examination* defendant’s attorneys…
1Per curiam
After the selection of a jury in the trial of a criminal case, in which the accused has participated (assuming from the question under review that the defendant in the instant case did partieipate in the selection of a jury), and after the introduction of evidence upon the merits of the ease has commenced, the defendant will be deemed to have waived formal arraignment, and' it' is then too late for him to demur; and the court did not err in refusing to allow the defendant to demur, nor in overruling the motion to quash.
2Cited by11 opinions
- Davis v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1975
- Burns v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1940
- Bramblett v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1977
- Bramblett v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1976
- Caswell v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1921
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.