From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Richardson v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia
Oct 25, 1973
201 S.E.2d 398 (Ga. 1973)

Summary

In Richardson v. State, 231 Ga. 295 (201 S.E.2d 398), the Supreme Court plainly held that an indictment charging violation of a county zoning ordinance is a charge of a violation " of state law for failure to comply with local zoning ordinances," (emphasis supplied) which state law is Code Ann. § 69-9904 (Ga. L. 1957, p. 420, 431, § 12).

Summary of this case from Clark v. State

Opinion

28272.

SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 14, 1973.

DECIDED OCTOBER 25, 1973.

Zoning violation; constitutional question. Morgan Superior Court. Before Judge Jackson.

D. D. Veal, for appellant.

Joseph B. Duke, District Attorney, Wayne B. Bradley, for appellee.


Appellant was indicted because he "did... unlawfully" on February 16, 1973 "fail and refuse to remove his mobile home trailer, to wit: one (1) Timm Craft 12 ft. by 60 ft. Mobile Home Trailer, from land owned by Stewart Oil Company and rightfully occupied by the said John L. Richardson in Morgan County, Georgia, said property being subject to the County Zoning Ordinance then in existence in said Morgan County, Georgia, adopted by the governing authority of said Morgan County, Georgia, after the said John L. Richardson as rightful occupant was given notice to remove the said mobile home trailer from said land because of the said Zoning Ordinance, all as by law provided, contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace and dignity thereof."

This appeal is from the overruling of a demurrer to the indictment on various grounds including constitutional issues. These are treated in the opinion. Held:

1. Appellant argues that "Morgan County cannot enact criminal legislation; and that the indictment cannot stand unless alleging (as charged) an offense contrary to the laws of Georgia.... And, even if Morgan County could adopt criminal legislation, it could not adopt criminal mandates forcing a person to comply with a `notice to remove.'" Assuming for the sake of argument that these contentions are correct they have no application here. In our view the indictment charges a violation of state law for failure to comply with local zoning ordinances adopted under Ga. L. 1957, pp. 420, 431, § 12, which provides, "A violation of any ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to the provisions of this Act is hearby declared to be a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as provided by law." Code Ann. § 69-9904.

2. The indictment is not vague and indefinite. It is plain enough for a man of ordinary capacity to understand the nature of the offense charged. Stephen v. State, 11 Ga. 225 (17). See Code § 27-701. An indictment need not show the law on which it is predicated. Lee v. State, 184 Ga. 327 (2) ( 191 S.E. 256).

3. We have carefully considered the constitutional attacks and find them to be without merit.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.


SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 14, 1973 — DECIDED OCTOBER 25, 1973.


Summaries of

Richardson v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia
Oct 25, 1973
201 S.E.2d 398 (Ga. 1973)

In Richardson v. State, 231 Ga. 295 (201 S.E.2d 398), the Supreme Court plainly held that an indictment charging violation of a county zoning ordinance is a charge of a violation " of state law for failure to comply with local zoning ordinances," (emphasis supplied) which state law is Code Ann. § 69-9904 (Ga. L. 1957, p. 420, 431, § 12).

Summary of this case from Clark v. State
Case details for

Richardson v. State

Case Details

Full title:RICHARDSON v. THE STATE

Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Date published: Oct 25, 1973

Citations

201 S.E.2d 398 (Ga. 1973)
201 S.E.2d 398

Citing Cases

Turner v. State

Fed.R. Crim. Proc. 7 (c). Turner makes no claim that this indictment as drawn was inadequate to apprise him…

J. A. T. v. State

Even an indictment for battery has been held not to be required to allege the exact manner and means of the…