Burns v. State
| Decision Date | 04 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. A90A1030,A90A1030 |
| Citation | 397 S.E.2d 19,196 Ga.App. 732 |
| Parties | BURNS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Tony C. Jones, for appellant.
Britt R. Priddy, Dist. Atty., Henry O. Jones III, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Defendant Burns appeals his conviction of a violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act (). Held:
1. There was no violation of the sequestration rule in allowing the prosecuting law enforcement officer to remain after the rule was invoked and testify after hearing the testimony of another witness. Chastain v. State, 255 Ga. 723, 724(2), 342 S.E.2d 678; Day v. State, 188 Ga.App. 648, 649(5), 374 S.E.2d 87.
2. Defendant's next enumeration of error complains of portions of the State's closing argument to which defendant objected. The transcript contains only a fragment of the last sentence of the State's argument preceding each of defendant's objections. In one instance the defendant objected to the State's argument which concluded: "... haven't heard him get up there and deny it." Defendant contends that this statement was a comment on defendant's failure to testify. Any comment by the prosecution on defendant's silence is prohibited. Jones v. State, 185 Ga.App. 879, 366 S.E.2d 238.
Due to the omissions from the transcript it is impossible to conclude, without some degree of speculation, whether this phrase taken out of context actually refers to defendant or to his silence. "Where the transcript or record does not fully disclose what transpired at trial, the burden is on the complaining party to have the record completed at the trial court under the provisions of OCGA § 5-6-41(f)." Howe v. State, 250 Ga. 811, 813(2), 814, 301 S.E.2d 280. As this was not done in the case sub judice, there is nothing for this court to review. See Zachary v. State, 245 Ga. 2, 4, 262 S.E.2d 779; Smith v. State, 160 Ga.App. 26, 27(1), 285 S.E.2d 749.
3. There is no merit in defendant's third enumeration of error which contends that defendant was not served with a copy of the search warrant as required by OCGA § 17-5-25. This contention is clearly refuted by the evidence presented at the motion to suppress hearing.
4. In his next enumeration of error, defendant contends that it was error for the trial court to overrule his objection to testimony by a State witness as to the reputation of defendant or of defendant's house. However, the transcript fails to confirm that any such objection was made by the defendant. The absence of an objection amounts to a waiver....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. State
...Ga.App. 489(2), 398 S.E.2d 807 (1990); Moss v. State, 196 Ga.App. 81, 84(5), 395 S.E.2d 363 (1990) (pro se appeal); Burns v. State, 196 Ga.App. 732, 733, 397 S.E.2d 19 (1990); Mitchell v. State, 195 Ga.App. 255, 257 (fn. 1), 393 S.E.2d 274 (1990); Saunders v. State, 195 Ga.App. 810, 811(2),......
-
Minter v. State
...to the jury. Because Minter has failed to complete the record as to this issue, nothing exists for us to review. Burns v. State, 196 Ga.App. 732(2), 397 S.E.2d 19 (1990). But even assuming the objectionable portion of the tape was shown, Minter has not carried his burden of showing ineffect......
- Mann v. State, A90A0997
-
Ivey v. State
...complaining party to have the record completed at the trial court level under the provisions of OCGA § 5-6-41(f). Burns v. State, 196 Ga.App. 732(2), 397 S.E.2d 19 (1990); Howe v. State, 250 Ga. 811, 814(2), 301 S.E.2d 280 (1983). Since this was not done in this case, we cannot review this ......