Ellard v. State, 29573
| Citation | 212 S.E.2d 816,233 Ga. 640 |
| Decision Date | 05 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 29573,29573 |
| Parties | Robert M. ELLARD et al. v. The STATE |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
W. J. Stanley, Atlanta, for appellants.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Carole E. Wall, Asst. Dist. Atty., Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., B. Dean Grindle, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Robert M. Ellard and James E. Whittier were convicted of rape and aggravated sodomy and sentenced to serve two consecutive life sentences. They appeal to this court. Held:
1. The appellants contend that the trial court erred in admitting testimony over objection of a police lineup, because the testimony was of no probative value, served to distract the jury from the true issue at trial, served to interject a false issue, and caused belief that the appellants had denied their identities.
There is no merit in these contentions.
The defendants admitted their identity and evidence of identification by the victim at a lineup, if error, was harmless.
2. The appellants contend that the state did not prove the venue of the crimes.
The evidence shows that the victim, accompanied by police, located the site of the first rapes and aggravated sodomy. The victim testified that the site of the second attacks was only a short distance from the first attacks which all occurred during a six and a half hour period. Detective Mills testified that after visiting the location of the first site and comparing it with an official map the locations of both attack sites were in Fulton County.
"Evidence as to venue, though slight, is sufficient where there is no conflicting evidence.' Baker v. State, 55 Ga.App. 159, 189 S.E. 364; Porter v. State, 76 Ga. 658(2), 660; Johnson v. State, 62 Ga. 299(1); Womble v. State, 107 Ga. 666(3), 33 S.E. 630.' Climer v. State, 204 Ga. 776, 781, 51 S.E.2d 802, 805. There is no merit in this contention.
3. The appellants contend that the court erred in admitting testimony that the defendants had or might have committed similar but uncharged offenses in the past to those presently alleged and in allowing argument by counsel for the state thereon.
The evidence shows that the victim stated that one of the three men involved (one of whom has not yet been apprehended) stated that it 'looks like we got a good one this time.' On redirect examination she testified that one of them said, "we have a good one this time' which gave me the feeling at that time that I wasn't the first girl that they had taken on.' Defense counsel objected to the conclusion of the witness and his objection was sustained but the first part of the answer was allowed in evidence. Ellard, one of the appellants, also testified that he had on numerous occasions picked up girls but he could not remember who made the statement testified to by the victim. In his closing argument to the jury the district attorney did not state that the appellants had committed crimes but told the jury that they could draw whatever inferences they wished from the statement. We find no error.
4. The prosecuting attorney asked the appellant Whittier, 'That is where most of the car thieves dump their cars, isn't it?' Counsel for the appellants objected to the question and the objection was sustained. The jury was told to disregard the question. No motion for a mistrial was made but the appellants contend that the trial court should also have rebuked counsel. There is no merit in this contention. Compare Counts v. Moorehead, 232 Ga. 220(1), 206 S.E.2d 40.
5. No objections were made in the trial court to the opening statement of the prosecuting attorney or to his closing argument.
'A party can not during the trial ignore what he thinks to be an injustice, take his chance on a favorable verdict, and complain later.' Joyner v. State, 208 Ga. 435, 438, 67 S.E.2d 221, 223; Scott v. State, 229 Ga. 541, 192 S.E.2d 367.
6. The appellants contend that the trial court erred in failing to give their requested charges to the jury. Defense counsel stated that he would not insist on the requests. Defense counsel now insists that the trial court erred in failing to give the requested charges.
The trial court fully charged the jury on all isssues presented at the trial and it was not error to fail to give the requested charges in the exact language requested. McClendon v. State, 231 Ga. 47(4), 199 S.E.2d 904.
7. The trial court charged the jury: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hance v. Zant
...magnitude.15 Evidence as to venue, though slight, is sufficient where there is no conflicting evidence. Ellard v. State, 233 Ga. 640, 212 S.E.2d 816, 818 (1975). ...
-
Hance v. State
...(1949). This evidence was sufficient to establish venue in Muscogee County. Wimbish v. State, 70 Ga. 718(3) (1883); Ellard v. State, 233 Ga. 640, 212 S.E.2d 816 (1975); Aldridge v. State, 236 Ga. 773, 225 S.E.2d 421 2. In his second enumeration of error, appellant asserts that the trial cou......
- Davis v. State
-
Lavender v. State, 29931
...taken together with the entire charge was not misleading or argumentative. Enumeration of error number 4 is without merit. Ellard v. State, 233 Ga. 640, 212 S.E.2d 816; Thomas v. State, 95 Ga. 484(3), 22 S.E. 4. The defendant failed to support enumeration of error number 1 by argument or ci......