Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

34 Ga. 202

McBryde v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided March 15, 1865

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1865-03-15

<p>[1.] The proof of guilt is not confined to the flay mentioned in the indictment. It may extend to any day previous to the finding of the hill and within the stantory limits for prosecuting the offence.</p> <p>[2] When the offence ivas laid at a time when the law prohibiting the offence had been changed, and the penalty greatly increased, and the offence is proved to have been committed when the old law was in force, and there is nothing in' the record to warrant the belief that the penalty imposed was inflicted under the new law, and not the old — this Court will presume that the punishment was inflicted under the old law.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1865-03-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently July 1979

8 state decisions

60186518701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Lyon, J.

¶1We see no error in the charge of the Court complained of.

¶2[1] Nothing is bettor settled, than that proof of guilt is not confined to the day mentioned in the idictment. It may extend hack to any period previous to the finding of the bill and within the statutory limits for prosecuting the offence. *204Cook vs. The State, 11 Geo., 53. Wingard vs. The State, 13 Geo., 396. There is no complaint that the offence proved was barred by the statute of limitations.

¶3[2] Counsel for the plaintiffs made this point: that they were tried and punished under a law not in force when the offence was committed; and that, in consequence, the penalty imposed upon them, as to the amount of the fine and cost of the proceeding was much greater than it could or would have beeu under the law as it stood when the offence was committed. If the fact was true, the point would most unquestionably be good; but there is nothing in the record to sustain the position taken by counsel. There is nothing to raise even a suspicion that the plantiffs were not tried and sentenced imposed under the law as it stood when the offence was committed. It is true that the Court fined the plaintiffs one hundred dollars each, the extent of the penalty under the old law ; and that is, we suppose, what the Court intended. If the punishment had been inflicted under the new law, he might have put the fine at five hundred dollars, instead of one hundred dollars. The object was, to suppress the commission of the crime; and the Judge took the proper course to accomplish that object, by fining to the extent of thelaw. Upon this aspect of the case, we must presume that the penalty was imposed under the old law as it stood when the offence was committed. Something was said in the argument about the costs being more under the new law, than the old. That is true; but when an attempt is made to collect costs according to the fee bill of the new, rather than that of the old law, under which the offence was committed, then will be the time for complaint. Of course, the costs can only be taxed under the law which was in force when the crime was committed.

/34/ga/202 · .json · Public domain