Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Gunn v. State
Citations: 183 S.E.2d 389; 227 Ga. 786; 1971 Ga. LEXIS 845Docket: 26560
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia; July 9, 1971; Georgia; State Supreme Court
Calvin Gunn was indicted, tried, and convicted of foeticide, with the offense alleged to have occurred on November 22, 1969. After the trial, Gunn filed a motion for a new trial and a motion in arrest of judgment, both of which were overruled. The appeal focused solely on the latter motion, which argued that foeticide was no longer a crime in Georgia following the effective date of the new Criminal Code on July 1, 1969. The Supreme Court of Georgia addressed several key legal principles regarding the indictment and the timing of the alleged offense. First, an indictment is demurrable if it charges an offense committed after the repeal of the relevant statute. A conviction based solely on acts occurring after the repeal would be contrary to law. However, if the indictment alleges a date subsequent to the repeal but the evidence supports that the offense occurred before the repeal, the date becomes immaterial, and the conviction remains valid. The court noted that a motion in arrest of judgment can only address defects apparent on the face of the record, which includes the indictment and judgment. Furthermore, while a repeal of a statute typically ends prosecutions, a saving clause can preserve pending prosecutions. The court examined the provisions of the new Criminal Code, emphasizing that the law applicable at the time of the offense governs its prosecution, regardless of the indictment's date. It concluded that since the indictment did not preclude evidence showing the crime could have occurred within the statute of limitations, and given that the specifics of the evidence were not considered in the motion in arrest of judgment, the trial court's decision to overrule the motion was affirmed. All justices concurred in the decision.