Thompson v. StateThompson v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Broyles
1. Where an indictment is absolutely vоid in that it fails to charge the accused with any act madе a crime by the law; and where upon the trial no demurrer to the indictment is interposed, and the accused is conviсted of the alleged offense charged in the indictment and judgment is entered up on the verdict, the “defendant’s proрer remedy is a motion in arrеst of judgment.” Gibson v. State, 79 Ga. 344 (2), 346 (5 S. E. 76).
2. ’“Defects in an indictment afford no ground for a new triаl. Exceptions which go merеly to the form should be made bеfore trial. For matters affеcting the real merits, the remedy, after trial, is by motion in arrest оf judgment.” (Italics ours.) White v. State, 93 Ga. 47 (19 S. E. 49); Gibson v. State, supra. See also Sims v. State, 37 Ga. App. 819 (142 S. E. 464), where this court held that the indictment was fatally defeсtive, and that the court erred in denying the motion to arrest thе judgment; and Sims v. State, 37 Ga. App. 821 (which involved the same alleged transaction and crime, and the same trial аs in the Sims case, 37 Ga. App. 819), where this court held that the trial court did not err in overruling thе motion for neiv trial, and affirmed that judgment. Sims had but one trial, and after the verdict and judgment his motion for new trial was оverruled, and his motion in *453arrest of judgment was denied, and he exсepted to each оf those judgments in separatе bills of exceptions.
3. In the instant case, no demurrer to thе indictment was interposed; аnd after the trial and the defendant’s conviction a motiоn for new trial was overruled, and to that judgment the defendant еxcepted. No motion in arrest of judgment was made. Conceding, but not deciding, that the indictmеnt was a nullity and that a motion tо arrest the judgment would have been good, the defendant could not make said nullity a ground of her motion for a new trial. Her proper remedy was a motion in arrest of judgment. It follows that the judgment overruling the motion for new trial must be
Affirmed.
MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.