Carswell v. State
| Decision Date | 17 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 64280,64280 |
| Citation | 295 S.E.2d 548,163 Ga.App. 743 |
| Parties | CARSWELL v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Harry J. Fox, Jr., Russell M. Boston, Macon, for appellant.
G. Theron Finlayson, Dist. Atty., Perry, for appellee.
Appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted of armed robbery. From this conviction he appeals, enumerating the following as error: (1) the trial court's refusal to grant his motion for mistrial based upon his courtroom attire; (2) the admission into evidence of a pocketknife taken from his person shortly after the incident in question; (3) the alleged failure of the state to show that the robbery in question involved the use of an offensive weapon; and (4) the general ground that the verdict is not supported by the evidence.
1. Immediately before opening statements but after the impaneling of the jury, counsel for appellant moved for mistrial based on appellant's attire. It was asserted that appellant's mother had taken "some clothes" to the sheriff's department shortly before the trial of the case but that these clothes were never delivered to appellant. Appellant thus appeared in court wearing what the trial judge noted to be "a T-shirt of some sort, golf shirt, something like that, and regular pants." The court also noted that he was not dressed in "prison garb" and that his clothes appeared clean. After denying the motion, the trial judge stated that he would permit appellant to change clothes before the trial resumed. The record does not reflect whether appellant took the opportunity to change clothes.
Appellant attempts to equate the clothing he wore during the impaneling of the jury with prison clothing. While a defendant has the right to appear at trial in civilian clothes rather than prison clothing (Krist v. State, 133 Ga.App. 197, 210 S.E.2d 381), we find nothing in the record in this case to indicate that appellant was attired in anything other than clean civilian clothing during all times he appeared in the courtroom. Consequently, we find no denial of appellant's right to appear in court in civilian clothing. Furthermore, appellant's motion for mistrial was not made until the jury had already been impaneled, and the trial judge immediately offered him the opportunity to change into more preferable clothing. Any objection based upon his attire prior to the motion for mistrial was clearly waived. Green v. State, 138 Ga.App. 466, 467, 226 S.E.2d 618; Krist v. State, supra, 133 Ga. at p. 197, 210 N.E.2d 381. The trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion for mistrial.
2. The trial court also did not err in overruling appellant's objection to the admission into evidence of a pocketknife recovered from appellant at the time of his arrest. Appellant was apprehended in the vicinity of the robbery approximately five minutes after it took place. At that time the arresting officer recovered the pocket knife from appellant's person. The robbery victim, who identified appellant as her assailant, testified that he placed a sharp object against her throat while perpetrating the robbery. She testified that she was subsequently cut on the hand several times in a minor fracas with appellant. In an oral statement made by appellant while...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Slade v. State
...(no motion until close of State's evidence); Wilkes v. State, 221 Ga.App. 390, 392(2), 471 S.E.2d 332 (1996); Carswell v. State, 163 Ga.App. 743, 744(1), 295 S.E.2d 548 (1982). Moreover, "[f]ailure to attempt to invoke a ruling on [a] pre-trial motion until after defendant had already appea......
-
Palmer v. State
...This is true even though the defendant contends he had other civilian clothing available to wear. See, e.g., Carswell v. State, 163 Ga.App. 743, 744(1), 295 S.E.2d 548 (1982); Hayslip v. State, 154 Ga. App. 835(1), 270 S.E.2d 61 Palmer argues that, unlike the appellant in Johnson, supra, he......
-
Seawright v. State
...error in admitting into evidence the knives found in the pockets of two of the defendants when they were arrested. Carswell v. State, 163 Ga.App. 743(2), 295 S.E.2d 548 (1982). 9. Since no motion for severance was made, there was no error in the trial court's failure to sever Vonlinsowe's t......
-
Sims v. State
...into evidence was the one actually used or was only similar to the [shotgun] used by the defendant. [Cit.]" Carswell v. State, 163 Ga.App. 743(2), 295 S.E.2d 548 (1982). In addition, the evidence adduced at trial relative to the identification of the shotgun was sufficient to authorize the ......