Daugherty v. State
| Decision Date | 08 May 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 25143,25143 |
| Citation | 225 Ga. 274,168 S.E.2d 155 |
| Parties | Clinton Leroy DAUGHERTY v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Garland & Garland, Reuben, A. Garland, E. G. Shaffer, Atlanta, for appellant.
Richard Bell, Dist. Atty., Dennis F. Jones, Decatur, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The appellant was convicted of rape with a recommendation of mercy, and thereupon was sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed 'from the judgment of conviction and sentence * * * and the order denying (his) motion for new trial, as amended.' In this court counsel for the appellant argues and insists on only two points raised by the enumeration of errors, and our discussion will be confined to those two points.
1. One of appellant's contentions is that a part of the trial was conducted out of his presence when he had not expressly or impliedly waived his right to be present at all stages of the trial. In this connection the record and transcript shows that at one point during the course of the trial in the courtroom, and after the jury had been excused during the argument on an objection with respect to the admissibility of a document which the State had tendered in evidence, counsel for the accused stated 'May it please the Court, may I talk with the Court out of the presence of the Jury?', whereupon the judge and counsel for the State and counsel for the accused, together with the court reporter, retired to the judge's chambers at the suggestion of the judge that to do so would be easier than for the jury to retire. The accused was present in the courtroom when when this was done, and neither he nor his counsel made any objection to the action of the trial judge. Thereafter, the judge and counsel for both parties together with the court reporter returned to the courtroom, and the trial continued. No objection or motion for a mistrial was made either before or after this incident until the question was raised for the first time in the appellant's enumeration of errors before this court. Under these circumstances the defendant waived his right to be present during the conference between the court and counsel and this cannot now be made the basis of the grant of a new trial. Smith v. State, 59 Ga. 513(1); Johnson v. State, 154 Ga. 529(2), 114 S.E. 713; Swain v. State, 162 Ga. 777, 783, 135 S.E. 187; Wilson v. State, 212 Ga. 73, 77, 90 S.E.2d 557.
2. The other contention of the appellant is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Phillips
...the cross-examination of his wife. Wilson v. State, supra; Harwell v. England, 234 Ga. 640, 217 S.E.2d 154 (1975); Daugherty v. State, 225 Ga. 274, 168 S.E.2d 155 (1969). (C.) Contrary to appellee's assertions, a waiver of confrontation rights is not necessarily precluded by the failure of ......
-
Casey v. State
...testimony at trial. It was, therefore, neither contradictory nor relevant to her 'testimony and to the case.' See, e.g., Daugherty v. State, 225 Ga. 274, 168 S.E.2d 155; Bond v. State, 120 Ga.App. 555, 171 S.E.2d 634; Kapplin v. Seiden, 109 Ga.App. 586, 592, 137 S.E.2d 55; Granger v. Nation......
-
Bishop v. State, 72510
...719, 222 S.E.2d 181; see also Watkins v. State, 237 Ga. 678, 229 S.E.2d 465. But, this latter right may be waived. Daugherty v. State, 225 Ga. 274, 168 S.E.2d 155. As to waiver of presence, generally see State v. Phillips, 247 Ga. 246(1), 275 S.E.2d Our Supreme Court has adopted the rule of......
-
Collins v. State, 48137
...Bennefield v. State, 86 Ga.App. 285, 288(4), 71 S.E.2d 760. The rule applies to evidence elicited on cross-examination. Daugherty v. State, 225 Ga. 274(2), 168 S.E.2d 155. This ground is without 3. The admission of the indictment on which defendant had, without counsel, entered a plea of gu......