Herring v. State (1904)

If that right means anything, it means that, before Georgia can prosecute its citizens for making choices about the most inti mate aspects of their lives, it must do more than assert that the choice they have made is an “ ‘abominable crime not fit to be named among Christians.’” Herring v. State, 119 Ga. 709, 721 , 46 S. E. 876, 882 (1904). h-t In its haste to reverse the Court of Appeals and hold that the Constitution does not “confe[r] a fundamental right upon homosexuals …

Herring v. State, 119 Ga. 709, 720 (2), 46 S.E. 876 (1904).

Perjury, as proscribed by OCGA § 16-10-70 (a), “ ‘is the wilful assertion as to a matter of fact, opinion, belief, or knowledge, made by a witness in a judicial proceeding as part of his evidence. . .given in open court or in an affidavit. . . .’ ” Herring v. State, 119 Ga. 709, 715 (1) ( 46 SE 876 ).

Herring v. State, 119 Ga. 709, 715 ( 46 SE 876 ) [(1904)].” (Punctuation omitted.) Hicks v. State, 67 Ga. App. 475, 481-482 (4) ( 21 SE2d 113 ) (1942); see also Smith v. State, 85 Ga. App. 459, 471 (4) ( 69 SE2d 281 ) (1952).

"Oftentimes affiant’s knowledge of matters stated in his affidavit must, of necessity, rest upon information derived from others; and where this is the case, it is generally sufficient if he aver that such matters are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.” Herring v. State, 119 Ga. 709, 717 ( 46 SE 876 ) (1904).

I. agent, on cross examination testified that he had signed the affidavit on which the accusation was based, that he “wasn’t out there,” that he knew “where the stuff came from,” that there were “five other men out there.” In Herring v. State, 119 Ga. 709, 717 ( 46 SE 876 ) it is stated that, “Oftentimes affiant’s knowledge of matters stated in his affidavit must, of necessity, rest upon information derived from others; and where this is the case, it is generally sufficient …

The offense consists in swearing falsely *482 and corruptly, without probable cause of belief; not in swearing rashly or inconsiderately, according to belief.’ ” Herring v. State, 119 Ga. 709, 715 ( 46 S. E. 876 ).

See generally Herring v. State; 119 Ga. 709, 717 ( 46 S. E. 876 ); Brinkley v. Bell, 131 Ga. 226 (2) ( 62 S. E. 67 ); Bull v. Carpenter, 32 Ga. App. 637, 639 ( 124 S. E. 381 ); 1 Am.

The intent to testify falsely and the falsity of the testimony given must both appear.” “An honest oath, though untrue, is not perjury.” Herring v. State, 119 Ga. 709, 714 ( 46 S. E. 876 ).

Affidavits of illegality stand upon the same plane as affidavits to garnishments, ne exeat, non est factum, attachment, etc. See Herring v. State, 119 Ga. 709, 718 ( 46 S. E. 876 ); Winn v. Miller, 136 Ga. 388 ( 71 S. E. 658 ).

Certain evidence was allowed to go to the jury to which the only objection then urged (and no other can be considered by this court: Phillips v. State, 102 Ga. 594 , 27 S. E. 699 ; Milliken v. State, 34 Ga. App. 596, 597 , 130 S. E. 347 , and eit.), was that “the witness could not testify to the best of his- knowledge and belief.” “To swear that one. believes a thing to be true is equivalent to swearing that it is true, and perjury may be assigned on such affidavit.” Herring…

See also Herring v. State, 119 Ga. 709, 719 (46 SE 876) (1904) (noting, in appeal from conviction for subornation of perjury, that the sodomy case initiated based on the perjured statement was “dismissed by the magistrate for want of prosecution” when “no one appeared at the time appointed for the hearing of the charge”); Blevins v. State, 113 Ga. App. 413, 416 (148 SE2d 192) (1966) (“If the defendant believes the State has delayed beyond a reasonable time in bringing him to…

See Herring v. State, 119 Ga. 709 , 46 S.E. 876 ; White v. State, 136 Ga. 158 , 71 S.E. 135 ; Jones v. State, 17 Ga. App. 825 , 88 S.E. 712 ; Comer v. State, 21 Ga. App. 306 , 94 S.E. 314 ; State v. Guerin, 51 Mont. 250 , 152 P. 747, 748 ; State v. Whitmarsh, 26 S. D. 426, 128 N.W. 580, 583 ; Ex parte Benites, 37 Nev. 145 , 140 P. 436 ; State v. Maida, 6 Boyce (Del.) 40, 96 A. 207 ; Glover v. State, 179 Ind. 459 , 101 N.E. 629 , 45 L.

See Herring v. State, 119 Ga. 709 ( 46 S. E. 876 ); Sewell v. State, 61 Ga. 496 ; Davis v. State, 7 Ga. App. 680 ( 67 S. E. 839 ); Pennaman v. State, 58 Ga. 336 ; Rowe v. State, 99 Ga. 706 ( 27 S. E. 710 ).

See also Herring v. State, 119 Ga. 709, 715 ( 46 S. E. 876 ).

See generally Herring v. State , 119 Ga. 709 , 717 ( 16 S.E. 876 ); Brinkley v. Bell , 131 Ga. 226 (2) ( 62 S.E. 67 ); Bull v. Carpenter , 32 Ga. App. 637 , 639 ( 124 S.E. 381 ); 1 Am.

See Herring v. State, 119 Ga. 709 .