Archie v. State
Decision Date | 14 February 2001 |
Docket Number | No. A01A0015.,A01A0015. |
Citation | 248 Ga. App. 56,545 S.E.2d 179 |
Parties | ARCHIE v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Mario A. Pacella, Decatur, for appellant.
Daniel J. Craig, District Attorney, Charles R. Sheppard, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
A Spalding County jury found Robert Archie guilty of burglary. Archie does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence against him, but claims (1) that the trial court made an improper opinion comment in violation of OCGA § 17-8-57; and (2) that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial because his trial attorney failed to object to the court's allegedly improper opinion comment and failed to object to alleged hearsay testimony by the victim of the burglary. Upon review, we affirm Archie's conviction.
1. In reversing this Court in its recent decision in Paul v. State,1 the Supreme Court of Georgia announced a new rule of law wherein a claim of error alleging a violation of OCGA § 17-8-57 is not waived by an attorney's failure to object at trial, if such violation constitutes "plain error": "[W]e will apply the plain error rule to death penalty cases and other criminal cases in which the trial court violates OCGA § 17-8-57."2 This, although for 25 years the failure to object to an alleged violation of OCGA § 17-8-57 has resulted in the waiver of such claim on appeal.3 In fact, we have been especially assiduous in applying waiver ever since the Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari to vacate an opinion of this Court for not finding waiver:
The Court of Appeals opinion appears to hold that the purported statements require reversal regardless of whether there was a contemporaneous objection entered. The question of whether Code Ann. § 81-1104 [now OCGA § 17-8-57] has been violated is not reached unless an objection or motion for mistrial is made.... The failure of the appellant to object to the questions or to move for a mistrial at the trial estopped him from raising an objection on appeal.4
Notwithstanding such precedent, we will, of course, follow the current mandate of our Supreme Court as articulated in Paul v. State. And although the "plain error" rule is usually applied only in death penalty cases or other criminal cases involving "exceptional circumstances,"5 we will do as directed and apply such rule to every criminal case alleging a violation of OCGA § 17-8-57. As such, we will determine herein whether the trial court comment about which Archie complains constituted "plain error" and thus requires reversal. If not, the claim will be waived by Archie's failure to object at trial.6 "`Plain error' is that which is so clearly erroneous as to result in a likelihood of a grave miscarriage of justice or which seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of a judicial proceeding."7
In this case, the victim of the burglary was called to the stand as the State's first witness. She testified that she arrived home and found her back door "tore up" and her television and VCR missing. The victim called the police to report the burglary. Thereafter, the victim's teenage son was called to the stand. After asking preliminary questions, the prosecutor directed the son's attention to the incident in question: Defense counsel objected because the question was leading and used the expression "burglarized." The trial court then stated: Archie now challenges the trial court's comment as being an expression of what was proved in violation of OCGA § 17-8-57. Archie, however, put forth an alibi defense wherein he readily agreed that the victim's home had been burglarized. He simply claimed that he did not do it and did not know who did. Since the fact that the victim's home was burglarized was not an issue in this case, we do not find the trial court's comment seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the trial so as to constitute "plain error." Accordingly, Archie's claim of error is waived.8
Judgment affirmed.
3. See Pickren v. State, 272 Ga. 421, 426(8), 530 S.E.2d 464 (2000); Cammon v. State, 269 Ga. 470, 475(8), 500 S.E.2d 329 (1998); Wilson v. State, 268 Ga. 527, 529(5), 491 S.E.2d 47 (1997); Waldrip v. State, 267 Ga. 739, 751(20), 482 S.E.2d 299 (1997); Rowe v. State, 266 Ga. 136, 137(2), 464 S.E.2d 811 (1996); Crowe v. State, 265 Ga. 582, 594(19), 458 S.E.2d 799 (1995); Gardner v. State, 263 Ga. 197, 200, 429 S.E.2d 657 (1993); Newton v. State, 259 Ga. 853, 854(5), 388 S.E.2d 698 (1990); Walker v. State, 258 Ga. 443, 444, 370 S.E.2d 149 (1988); Kimbrough v. State, 254 Ga. 504, 505-506(3), 330 S.E.2d 875 (1985); Driggers v. State, 244 Ga. 160, 162(2), 259 S.E.2d 133 (1979); Davis v. State, 234 Ga. 730, 731(2), 218 S.E.2d 20 (1975).
4. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) State v. Griffin, 240 Ga. 470, 241 S.E.2d 230 (1978).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tucker v. Tucker
...separate parts but by looking at it as a whole."), abrogated in part on other grounds as recognized in Archie v. State , 248 Ga. App. 56, 57 (1) & n. 3, 545 S.E.2d 179 (2001). Moreover, the trial court's error here was not harmless because the total sentence imposed for Jarvis's conspiracy ......
-
Rouse v. State
...was in Bartow County,” the claim was waived and could not be first raised in a motion for new trial). See also Archie v. State, 248 Ga.App. 56, 57 and n. 3, 545 S.E.2d 179 (2001) (citing numerous cases applying waiver to OCGA § 17–8–57 claims and noting that in State v. Griffin, 240 Ga. 470......
-
Walker v. the State.
...by an attorney's failure to object at trial, if such violation constitutes plain error.” (punctuation omitted)); Archie v. State, 248 Ga.App. 56, 57(1), 545 S.E.2d 179 (2001) (same). 27. Archie, 248 Ga.App. at 58(1), 545 S.E.2d 179 (punctuation omitted); see also Mathis, 276 Ga.App. at 206,......
-
Booth v. State
...and the court properly charged the jury on its role), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by Archie v. State, 248 Ga. App. 56, 57 (1) n.3, 545 S.E.2d 179 (2001). 3. Booth argues that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of other acts for the purpose of proving his intent to comm......