Troup v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Hudson v. State

    135 Ga. App. 739 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 49 times
    Holding that an individual's statement to officers that he was going into another room to get a gun to prevent them from arresting his mother could not create the apprehension of an immediate violent injury, and therefore would not authorize a verdict of guilty on the charge of simple assault

    "If the defendant can admit all that is charged [in the indictment] and still be innocent, the indictment is fatally defective." Troup v. State, 83 Ga. App. 151, 152 (2) ( 63 S.E.2d 4). Therefore, if Hudson admitted committing all of the acts charged in the accusation, would he be guilty of the offense of obstruction of officers? Code § 26-2505 provides: "A person who knowingly and wilfully obstructs or hinders any law enforcement officer in the lawful discharge of his official duties is guilty of a misdemeanor."

  2. Marshall v. State

    229 Ga. 841 (Ga. 1972)   Cited 18 times   1 Legal Analyses

    " "If the defendant can admit all that is charged and still be innocent the indictment is fatally defective . . . . since such admission would not show . . . that the sale was a cash transaction." Troup v. State, 83 Ga. App. 151 (2) ( 63 S.E.2d 4). The indictments did not show that the transactions were cash sales and are fatally defective. 2.

  3. State v. Solomon

    245 S.C. 550 (S.C. 1965)   Cited 40 times
    In State v. Solomon, 245 S.C. 550, 141 S.E.2d 818, the rule was announced that if "the language of the exception, found in any part of the statute, must be regarded as descriptive of the offense created by such statute, then such exception must be negatived; but, if it cannot properly be so regarded, then it becomes a matter of defense, and need not be negatived."

    The indictment covered, in general terms, violation of the statute on May 13, 1962, and but one conviction can be had against the defendant for the period covered by the indictment. State v. Van Buren, 86 S.C. 297, 68 S.E. 568; Troup v. State, 83 Ga. App. 151, 63 S.E.2d 4. The final question involving the indictment relates to alleged error on the part of the trial judge in permitting an amendment thereto at the trial by changing references to the seventh day of the week to read the first day of the week. The indictment alleged that the offenses were committed on May 13th, 1962. While the indictment as originally drawn is not printed in the record, it appears that May 13, 1962, was referred to in certain places in the indictment as the seventh day of the week and in others as the first.

  4. Shaw v. State

    175 S.E.2d 150 (Ga. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 2 times

    2. The sentence would of course be void if the accusation did not charge a crime, the test being whether the defendant can admit all the facts charged against him and still be innocent of any offense. Troup v. State, 83 Ga. App. 151 (2) ( 63 S.E.2d 4). On an accusation for obstructing legal process it was held under former Code § 26-4401 that the accusation must show as an essential ingredient of the offense the nature of the process and the authority of the officer to execute it. Hunter v. State, 4 Ga. App. 579 ( 61 S.E. 1130). This Code section has been superseded by Code Ann. § 26-2505 as follows: "A person who knowingly and wilfully obstructs or hinders any law enforcement officer in the lawful discharge of his official duties is guilty of a misdemeanor."