Dill v. State, 23771
| Decision Date | 05 December 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 23771,23771 |
| Citation | 152 S.E.2d 741,222 Ga. 793 |
| Parties | Leonard Frederick DILL v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Edward T. M. Garland, Garland & Garland, Reuben A. Garland, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Sol. Gen., J. Walter LeCraw, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., G. Ernest Tidwell, Exec. Asst. Atty. Gen., Hardaway Young, III, Ernest Stanford, Jr., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The defendant was convicted for the murder of Jerry Darnell with a recommendation of mercy. During the trial an objection to a question asked on cross examination by counsel for the defendant was sustained without argument as to the correctness of the State's objection. The appellant enumerates as error arising from such ruling the refusal of the trial court to hear argument before ruling, the refusal to hear argument on motion therefor after ruling, and the refusal to grant a mistrial after refusing to hear argument as to the admissibility of the evidence. Also included in the enumerations of error are the usual general grounds of the motion for new trial. Held:
1. 'The burden is on the party alleging that a judgment is erroneous to show it affirmatively by the record. Simpson v. McBride, 78 Ga. 297; Grier v. Cross, 79 Ga. 435, 6 S.E. 14; Gairdner v. Tate, 121 Ga. 253, 48 S.E. 907; Farmers' Protective Fire Ins. Co. v. Portrum (& Altman), 145 Ga. 825, 90 S.E. 49; Richmond Hosiery Mills v. Hayes, 146 Ga. 240, 91 S.E. 54; Richter v. Cann, 191 Ga. 103, 11 S.E.2d 774. Not only that, but the onus is on the plaintiff in error to show error which injured him. Brown v. City of Atlanta, 66 Ga. 71; First Nat. Bank of Chattanooga v. American Sugar Refining Co., 120 Ga. 717, 48 S.E. 326; Studstill v. Growers' Finance Corporation, 165 Ga. 304, 140 S.E. 859; Walker v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 196 Ga. 361, 26 S.E.2d 695. In Brown v. City of Atlanta, supra, this court said: It is not every erroneous exclusion of evidence that will suffice to reverse a judgment, and a case will not be reversed for error in the rejection of evidence unless the error results in a miscarriage of justice or constitutes a substantial violation of a constitutional or statutory right. It is for the reviewing court to determine whether prejudice has resulted; and if such exclusion did not prejudice the complaining party, and could not have affected the result, the error is harmless. 5 C.J.S. Appeal and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Geiger v. State
...810, 99 S.E.2d 302. Additionally, prejudice must be shown by the exclusion of the question asked on cross examination. Dill v. State, 222 Ga. 793, 152 S.E.2d 741. Such prejudice is not shown where counsel obtained substantially the same answer during later questioning. Curtis v. State, 224 ......
-
Mobley v. State
...Ga. 563(16), 449 S.E.2d 98 (1994). However, it is an old and sound rule that error to be reversible must be harmful. Dill v. State, 222 Ga. 793(1), 152 S.E.2d 741 (1966). Mobley does not assert, nor does the record reflect, that Mobley was required to provide or did in fact provide the stat......
-
Cauley v. State, s. 48422
...it to be harmless under these rules. The existence of error alone does not require a reversal-it must have been harmful. Dill v. State, 222 Ga. 793, 152 S.E.2d 741. "A defendant is entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one, for there are no perfect trials.' Lutwak v. United States, 344......
-
Chenault v. State
...it administers practical law, and corrects only such errors as have practically wronged the complaining party.' See also Dill v. State, 222 Ga. 793, 152 S.E.2d 741, and citations.' Also cited in Robinson v. State, 229 Ga. 14, 189 S.E.2d 53. No harmful error is shown by this enumeration of 3......