Cowan v. State, 59655
| Decision Date | 21 January 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 59655,59655 |
| Citation | 156 Ga.App. 650,275 S.E.2d 665 |
| Parties | COWAN v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
W. Franklin Freeman, Jr., Forsyth, for appellant.
Johnnie L. Caldwell, Jr., Dist. Atty., J. David Fowler, Paschal A. English, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
Appellant was convicted in the Superior Court of Spalding County of two counts of distributing marijuana. On appeal he contends, among other things, that the trial court erred in unduly restricting his right to conduct voir dire examination of prospective jurors. As this error requires reversal, we will not consider the other enumerations of error.
Appellant submitted a written list of 11 questions to the court which he intended to propound to each prospective juror on voir dire examination. The district attorney objected to the 11 questions and the trial court sustained his objection as to eight of the 11 questions. The list included a question as to each juror's membership in fraternal, social or church organizations, and each juror's connection with the district attorney, his staff and any law enforcement official involved in the prosecution of the case. Appellant objected to the court's ruling that such questions were not relevant. The state contends that appellant made no timely objection to the court's ruling and therefore, he is precluded from raising this issue on appeal; further, that the failure to object to the court's ruling is tantamount to a waiver.
As pointed out above, the district attorney objected to the questions submitted by appellant on the ground that such questions were not relevant, and the trial court sustained the district attorney's objection. Defense counsel then objected (took exception) to the court's ruling, stating that "we contend that they (the list of questions) are relevant ..." and "I think you're wrong in determining that it's irrelevant." Thus, the error alleged is based on the ruling of the trial court on the district attorney's objection; the sufficiency of an objection by appellant is not involved.
The requirement (former Code Ann. § 6-1001) that an exception be taken to a court's ruling was abolished by the Appellate Practice Act of 1965. (Ga.L. 1965, p. 18, et seq.) Even though not required to do so, appellant's counsel took exception to the court's ruling. The court, which had just ruled that certain voir dire questions were not relevant, stated it did not understand counsel's statement after the ruling that he thought the court was wrong and that he believed the questions were relevant. However, the court's misunderstanding should not adversely affect the defendant's right to have an appellate review of the court's ruling sustaining an objection made by the state as to the relevancy of the appellant's voir dire questions.
At the outset, we note that control of voir dire examination is normally within the discretion of the court....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallace v. State
...inject a racial issue into the case. The trial court sustained the objection and the appellant asserts error, citing Cowan v. State, 156 Ga.App. 650, 275 S.E.2d 665 (1980), and Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524, 93 S.Ct. 848, 35 L.Ed.2d 46 Prior to trial defense counsel submitted a writte......
-
Henderson v. State
...or acquaintance with the district attorney; jurors' memberships in religious, social and fraternal organizations). Cowan v. State, 156 Ga.App. 650, 275 S.E.2d 665 (1980).3 We deal here with an error under state law, as opposed to an error under the U.S. Constitution. Regarding constitutiona......
-
Ellis v. State, S12A1923.
...(2010) (citation and punctuation omitted). See also Humphreys v. State, 287 Ga. 63, 69(4), 694 S.E.2d 316 (2010); Cowan v. State, 156 Ga.App. 650, 651, 275 S.E.2d 665 (1980), overruled on other grounds, Legare v. State, 256 Ga. 302, 304(1), n. 2, 348 S.E.2d 881 (1986). Ellis has adequately ......
-
Mitchell v. State, 70646
...questions of each juror, for such ruling denie[s] appellant a substantial right granted him by statute. [Cits.]" Cowan v. State, 156 Ga.App. 650, 651, 275 S.E.2d 665 (1980). It has also been held that OCGA § 15-12-133 encompasses questions regarding possible racial prejudice and bias, even ......