Danzis v. State
| Decision Date | 04 December 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. A90A1965,A90A1965 |
| Citation | 198 Ga.App. 136,400 S.E.2d 671 |
| Parties | DANZIS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Harrison & Harrison, G. Hughel Harrison, Samuel H. Harrison, Lawrenceville, for appellant.
Gerald N. Blaney, Jr., Sol., Jeffrey P. Kwiatkowski, Asst. Sol., for appellee.
Defendant was convicted of the offenses of battery and simple battery. He was sentenced to confinement for a period of 12 months (of which all but 14 days were probated) and fined $500 on the battery count. After conviction, a nolle prosequi order was entered by the trial court on the simple battery count inasmuch as the offenses arose out of the same conduct. Following the denial of his motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Held:
1. During cross-examination of the victim (defendant's ex-wife), defense counsel asked if she had sworn out a warrant on the night in question. The victim replied that she did not, that the investigating officer obtained a warrant for defendant's arrest. Defense counsel persisted: " Thereupon, defense counsel pursued another line of questioning.
On redirect examination, the victim was asked: The victim responded with a simple "yes" and, outside the presence of the jury, defendant moved for a mistrial. The motion was denied; but the trial court instructed the prosecutor to drop the line of questioning about other warrants. Defense counsel asked the trial court to instruct the jury to disregard any questions about other warrants; the trial court refused to do so. Thereupon, defendant renewed his motion for a mistrial.
In his first enumeration of error, defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for a mistrial or, at the very least, in failing to give curative instructions to the jury. We find no error.
The granting of a motion for mistrial or the need for a curative instruction are matters which lie within the trial court's discretion. We find no abuse of discretion inasmuch as the line of questioning about previous warrants was elicited first by defense counsel without objection. "It is the introduction of facts not in evidence that requires the application of such remedies." Patterson v. State, 124 Ga. 408, 409, 52 S.E. 534 (1905). Accord Thompson v. State, 150 Ga.App. 567(2), 568, 258 S.E.2d 180 (1979).
2. Photographs depicting the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the victim were offered in evidence. Defendant objected to the photographs on the ground that they were taken ten days after the victim was injured and did not depict her condition at the earlier time. Defendant assigns error upon the admission of the photographs in evidence. We find no error. Johnston v. State, 232 Ga. 268, 270(1), 206 S.E.2d 468 (1974).
3. Defendant's assertion that the trial court erred in restricting the jury's consideration of the defense of provocation to the simple battery count is without merit. The trial court charged the language of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...v. State, 206 Ga.App. 122, 123(2), 424 S.E.2d 374 (1992) (bruising caused by forceful prodding with foot); Danzis v. State, 198 Ga.App. 136, 137-138, 400 S.E.2d 671 (1990) (red scuff marks that turned into substantial bruising). The evidence in this case is sufficient to support a finding t......
-
Christensen v. State
...discretion, find that the words used were justification for simple assault or simple battery. OCGA § 16-5-25. 9. Danzis v. State, 198 Ga.App. 136, 137(3), 400 S.E.2d 671 (1990). 10. Justification goes to negate criminal intent. See Green v. State, 240 Ga.App. 774, 776, 525 S.E.2d 154 11. Ch......
-
Foster v. State
...decision to grant a mistrial or to provide curative instructions lies within the discretion of the trial court. Danzis v. State, 198 Ga.App. 136, 137(1), 400 S.E.2d 671 (1990). Absent an abuse of that discretion, an appellate court will not disturb the court's decision. See Sims v. State, 2......
-
Seritt v. State, A99A0325.
...visible bodily harm by hitting Marvin, Jr. in the face with his fist, as alleged in Count 2 of the indictment. Danzis v. State, 198 Ga.App. 136, 137-138(4), 400 S.E.2d 671. Consequently, the trial court did not err in refusing to direct a verdict of acquittal in favor of defendant Marvin Eu......