Shurley v. The State

Supreme Court of Georgia1953-10-14No. 18355

210 Ga. 136

Summary · law.co

Holding. The judgment was affirmed. The court rejected Shurley's appeal, finding the pauper affidavit insufficient to waive costs, the trial judge's curative instruction regarding the defendant's statement adequate to cure any error, and sufficient evidence to support the jury's conviction.

Barney W. Shurley, Sr. was convicted of rape against a victim under 14 years of age and received a sentence of 5 to 7 years. He appealed, challenging his conviction on multiple grounds including the trial judge's jury charge and filing a pauper affidavit to avoid paying appellate costs.

The court addressed three separate issues on appeal. First, the pauper affidavit Shurley filed was defective because it was not properly entitled in the case, did not name the defendant in error, and was filed separately from the bill of exceptions rather than attached to it. Consequently, the affidavit could not relieve him of paying appellate costs, and those costs would not be refunded. Second, although the trial judge initially omitted instructions regarding Shurley's statement from his original charge to the jury, he corrected this error before the jury left the jury box by properly instructing them on the matter, making any objection to the omission from the original charge meritless. Third, the record contained sufficient evidence to corroborate the victim's testimony, and under a proper charge the jury's verdict—having been approved by the trial judge—would not be disturbed on appeal.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Sufficiency of pauper affidavit for waiving appellate costs
Adequacy of curative jury instruction when original charge omitted reference to defendant's statement
Sufficiency of evidence to support rape conviction where victim was under 14 years old

Procedural posture

Shurley appealed his rape conviction and sentence after the trial court denied his motion for a new trial on general and special grounds.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Hawkins, Justice.

Barney W. Shurley, Sr., was tried for the offense of rape and sentenced from 5 to 7 years. The question of consent is not involved, for the reason that the alleged victim was under the age of 14 years. The defendant’s motion for a new trial on the general grounds and one special ground, complaining of the charge, was denied and he excepted. Held:

1. “A pauper affidavit filed for the purpose of relieving the plaintiff in error and his counsel from the payment of the costs accruing in this court must be entitled in the cause referred to in the bill of exceptions, or otherwise show upon its face that it is connected therewith.” Franklin v. Kriegshaber, 114 Ga. 947 (2) (41 S. E. 47). Where, as here, a pauper affidavit is filed which is not in conformity with the above ruling, but merely recites: “Personally appeared . . . Barney W. Shurley, Sr., who on oath deposes and says that he is the plaintiff in error in the foregoing bill of exceptions,” is not entitled in the cause, and does not name the defendant in error, or otherwise disclose the bill of exceptions to which it refers, which affidavit was not attached to the bill of exceptions in the present case, and was filed in the office of the clerk of the superior court one day after the filing of the bill of exceptions — such affidavit is insufficient; and where counsel for the plaintiff in error has paid the costs in this court, they will not be refunded. Brucker v. O’Connor, 115 Ga. 95, 97 (41 S. E. 245); Perkins v. Rowland, 69 Ga. 661 (1a); Summerour v. State, 172 Ga. 560 (1c) (158 S. E. 327).

Submitted September 15, 1953

Decided October 14, 1953.

George B. Culpepper, Jr., for plaintiff in error.

Wm. M. West, Solicitor-General, Chas. F. Adams, Assistant Solicitor-General, Eugene Cook, Attorney-General, Rubye G. Jackson, contra.

2. Where, as here, the trial judge omitted in the charge originally given to the jury any instruction with reference to the defendant’s statement, but upon his attention being called thereto, and before the jury left the jury box, properly instructed them with reference to such statement, a ground of a motion for new trial assigning error because such instruction was omitted from the charge originally given to the jury is without merit. Davis v. State, 122 Ga. 564 (3) (50 S. E. 376); Patterson v. State, 122 Ga. 587 (1) (50 S. E. 489); Wallace v. State, 126 Ga. 749 (1) (55 S. E. 1042); Russell v. Tucker, 136 Ga. 136 (5) (70 S. E. 1018); Blount v. Dean, 187 Ga. 494 (7) (1 S. E. 2d 653).

3. A careful examination of the record in this case reveals some evidence to corroborate the testimony of the alleged victim, and “it is not for this court to pass upon its probative value; but the verdict of the jury under a proper charge from the court, having resolved that issue and having the approval of the trial judge, will not be disturbed.” Dorsey v. State, 204 Ga. 345, 347 (1) (49 S. E. 2d 886); Climer v. State, 204 Ga. 776, 779 (1) (51 S. E. 2d 802); Strickland v. State, 207 Ga. 284 (61 S. E. 2d 118).

Judgment affimed.

All the Justices concur.