From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thornton v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia
May 27, 1975
216 S.E.2d 330 (Ga. 1975)

Opinion

29744.

ARGUED APRIL 16, 1975.

DECIDED MAY 27, 1975.

Abandonment of child. Clayton State Court. Before Judge Foster.

Edwin M. Saginar, for appellant.


This is an appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior Court of Clayton County which denied appellant's plea of "autrefois acquit" to a second prosecution for the misdemeanor of child abandonment. Code Ann. § 74-9902. Appellant argues on appeal that his plea in bar should have been sustained and that § 74-9902 is unconstitutional. The only issue ruled on and certified for review was the question of "autrefois acquit." This court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute unless it clearly appears that the point was properly raised in the trial court and passed on. Tant v. State, 226 Ga. 761 ( 177 S.E.2d 484) (1970). Where the only constitutional question passed on involves simply an application of unquestioned and unambiguous provisions of the State or Federal Constitution, appellate jurisdiction is in the Court of Appeals. Reid v. State, 223 Ga. 376 ( 155 S.E.2d 22) (1967). An appeal from the overruling of a plea of "autrefois acquit" falls within this rule. Meadows v. State, 170 Ga. 802 ( 154 S.E. 188) (1930); Letbedder v. State, 129 Ga. App. 196 ( 199 S.E.2d 270) (1973), cert. den., 129 Ga. App. 920, U.S. cert. den. 414 U.S. 1134 (1974).

Transferred to the Court of Appeals. All the Justices concur.


ARGUED APRIL 16, 1975 — DECIDED MAY 27, 1975.


Summaries of

Thornton v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia
May 27, 1975
216 S.E.2d 330 (Ga. 1975)
Case details for

Thornton v. State

Case Details

Full title:THORNTON v. THE STATE

Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Date published: May 27, 1975

Citations

216 S.E.2d 330 (Ga. 1975)
216 S.E.2d 330

Citing Cases

Moore v. State

Accord, Shotwell Mfg. Co. v. United States, 371 U.S. 341 ( 83 SC 448, 9 L.Ed.2d 357). Also, the Supreme Court…

Thornton v. State

The Supreme Court did not pass upon the constitutionality of this statute because the point was not properly…