CARSELLO v. THE STATE; COOPERMAN v. THE STATE
22451, 22452
Supreme Court of Georgia
June 8, 1964
ARGUED APRIL 14, 1964
220 Ga. 90
The first special ground of the amended motion for new trial is based upon newly discovered еvidence, as incorporated in affidavits of two persons. However,
The remaining two special grounds complain of the admissiоn of certain evidence “over objection of the plaintiff.” Each of these grounds fails to recite what objection was made at the time the trial court admitted the evidence. Under reрeated rulings, “A ground of a motion for new trial complaining of the admission of evidence cannot be considered when it does not appear that the objections therein stated were urged before the trial judge at the time the evidence was offered.” Atlantic & Birmingham R. Co. v. Rabinowitz, 120 Ga. 864 (2) (48 SE 326). See also Luke v. State, 183 Ga. 302 (1) (188 SE 542). Thus, these grounds were likewise not meritorious.
The denial of the motion for new trial was not erroneous.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
Smith, Gardner, Kelly & Wiggins, for plaintiffs in error.
Maston O‘Neal, Solicitor General, Eugene Cook, Attorney General, William L. Harper, Alfred L. Evans, Jr., Assistant Attorneys General, contra.
GRICE, Justice. Mike Carsello and Harold Cooperman were jointly indicted by the grand jury of Dougherty County for giving money to a person acting for and on behalf of the State to induce that person to violate his lawful duty.
The indictment, omitting formal parts, charged that the two defendants, in that county on a named date, “did then and there give money to Marion Daniels, a special agent of the Revenue Commissioner of the State of Georgia, acting for and on behalf of the State of Georgia in an official function, to induce said Daniels to illegally furnish revenue tax stamps to Central Distributors, the holder of a whiskey wholesaler‘s license, to mislay and destroy records of the Revenue Commissioner concerning monthly reports of wholesale sales by said Central Distributors, to omit to do his lawful duty in arresting and prosecuting said acсuseds and other employees of said Central Distributors for violations of the laws of Georgia, and to illegally transport whiskey to Coffee County, Georgia, said acts and omissions being in violation of the lаwful duty of the said Marion Daniels. . .”
The defendants filed identical demurrers and motions to quash that indictment, based upon both constitutional and nonconstitutional grounds. Also, they made motions to suppress evidenсe. All of the demurrers and motions were overruled and denied. Those rulings are assigned as error here.
The statute upon which the indictment is predicated is
The title of that Act is in the following language: “An Act to make it a crime: To improperly influence lеgislative action; to deal with the State, directly or indirectly, while acting as an officer, employee, or agent of the State; to accept remunerations in addition to compensation provided by law while acting as
Section 18 of such Act, under which the defendants were indicted, provides as follows: “Whoever promises, offers, or gives any money or thing of value, or makes or tenders any cheсk, order, contract, undertaking, obligation, gratuity, or security for the payment of money or for the delivery or conveyance of anything of value to any officer or employee or pеrson acting for or on behalf of the State of Georgia, or agency thereof, in any official function, under or by authority of any such agency or to any officer or person acting for or оn behalf of either house of the General Assembly, or of any committee of either house; or both houses thereof, with intent to influence his decision or action on any question, matter, cause, or proceeding, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before him in his official capacity, or in his place of trust or profit, or with intent to influence him to commit or aid in committing, or tо collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud on the State of Georgia, or to induce him to do or omit to do any act in violation of his lawful duty, shall be guilty of a felony. . .”
As we assess the attacks made here it is necessary to rule upon only one, that the foregoing Section 18 contravenes
The thrust of this attack is that while the title of this Act prohibits the offering or accepting of anything of value to influence “members of the executive branch of government, the legislative branch of government, or the judicial branch of government,” Section 18 of the body of the Act does not restrict such prohibition to “members” of those branches of government, but includes “any officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the State of Georgia, or agency thereof, in any officiаl function, under or by authority of any such agency,” and thus contains matter different from what is expressed in the title. (Emphasis ours.)
This attack must be sustained.
As its history shows, the purpose of the Constitutional provision sought to be invoked is protection against surprise or fraudulent matter in the body of an Act, of which the title gives no intimation. Howell v. State, 71 Ga. 224, 227 (51 AR 259). Therefore, in considering this attack, the question is whether the language of the title gives notice of what the body of the Act contains.
In our view, the title language “to prohibit the offering or accepting of anything of value to influence members of the executive . . , the legislative . . , or the judicial branch of government” does not give notice that the body of the Act prohibits such acts with reference to ”any officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the State of Georgia, оr agency thereof, in any official function, under or by authority of any such agency or . . . any officer or person acting for or on behalf of either house of the General Assembly, or of any cоmmittee of either house; or both houses thereof. . .” (Emphasis ours.) In the first place, we do not construe the word “members” to have such a broad, all-inclusive meaning. In the second place, since the legislature had several times earlier in this title used the broad language “any officer, employee or agent of the State,” its use in the portion under consideration here of
This construction accords with the well established rule thаt when a criminal statute is reasonably subject to two constructions, one of which would make an act criminal and one of which would not, such statute must be construed in favor of the accused and striсtly against the State.
We therefore hold that Sec. 18 of
In view of the above ruling, it is not necessary to pass upon the other grounds of the demurrers and motions to quash or the motion to suppress evidence.
Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur, except Almand and Mobley, JJ., who dissent.
ALMAND, Justice, dissenting. I cannot agree to the ruling that Sec. 18 of
Mobley, J., concurs in this dissent.