# State v. Moore

> Supreme Court of Georgia · June 29, 1976 · 237 Ga. 269

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9854885

## Case

- **Full name:** The State v. Moore
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Georgia
- **Decided:** June 29, 1976
- **Citations:** 237 Ga. 269; 227 S.E.2d 241; 1976 Ga. LEXIS 1224
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Nichols, Ingram, Hill, Gunter
- **Cited by:** 84 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9854885

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing confusion in case law on whether defendant ever has burden of proof or persuasion in a criminal case

## Opinion text

On Motion for Rehearing.
Per curiam.
On motion for rehearing the respondent has contended that this court failed to address itself to respondent’s motion to dismiss the state’s petition for certiorari in this case.
Respondent contends that this court is without jurisdiction to entertain a petition for certiorari on behalf of the state after the reversal of a criminal conviction by the Court of Appeals.
The Georgia Constitution provides: "It shall also be competent for the Supreme Court to require by certiorari or otherwise any case to be certified to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals for review and determination with the same power and authority as if the case had been carried by writ of error to the Supreme Court.” Code Ann. § 2-3704.
Also, statutory provisions enacted in 1973 provide that the state may file an application for a writ of certiorari in a criminal case (Code Ann. § 6-1003a) "(b) From an order, decision or judgment arresting judgment of conviction upon legal grounds.” Code Ann. § 6-1001a.
The reversal of a trial court’s judgment of conviction in a criminal case by the Court of Appeals necessarily "arrests” a judgment of conviction "upon legal grounds.”
Pursuant to the enactment of the 1973 statutes, this court has consistently granted the state’s applications for the writ in criminal cases when this court has deemed the *273 application of the state to be meritorious.
The respondent’s motion to dismiss the state’s application on the ground that this court lacks jurisdiction is without merit.
Respondents motion denied.
All the Justices concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9854885. Public record. Not legal advice.