Georgia Communications Corp. v. Horne, 69434
| Decision Date | 04 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 69434,69434 |
| Parties | GEORGIA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION et al. v. HORNE et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
J. Dunham McAllister, Jonesboro, for appellants.
Kenneth R. Fielder, Cochran, for appellees.
This appeal follows a jury trial in which appellees were awarded damages for a radio "defamacast" broadcast by appellants. The sole issue at trial was damages, since appellants' defensive pleadings had been struck and judgment entered against them on the liability issue due to their failure to comply with a discovery order. See OCGA § 9-11-37(b)(2)(C); Ga. Communications Corp. v. Horne, 164 Ga.App. 227, 294 S.E.2d 725 (1982).
1. The motion to dismiss the appeal as frivolous is denied inasmuch as that is not a statutory ground for dismissal. See OCGA § 5-6-48.
2. Appellants' first and second enumerations of error have been decided adversely to them in this court's opinion in Williamson v. Lucas, 171 Ga.App. 695 (2b, 4), 320 S.E.2d 800 (1984).
3. The trial court adequately instructed the jury that appellees were entitled only to those damages alleged and proved. OCGA § 51-5-10(c). Compare Williamson v. Lucas, 166 Ga.App. 403(1), 304 S.E.2d 412 (1983). The trial court also informed the jury of the possibility of returning a verdict of no damages, if appropriate. See Williamson v. Lucas, supra, 171 Ga.App. 695(2a), 320 S.E.2d 800.
4. After several hours of deliberation, the jury announced that it was at an eleven to one deadlock. The trial court gave an "Allen" charge and the jury returned to its deliberations. An hour later, the jury again announced that it was "basically the same," and another "Allen" charge was issued. After approximately 70 minutes more of deliberation, the jury reached its verdict. Appellants maintain that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to declare the mistrial appellants sought after the jury's second announcement.
It is within the trial court's sound discretion to determine when and whether or not to give an "Allen" charge, and the exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed unless manifestly abused. See Harris v. Collins, 149 Ga.App. 638(2), 255 S.E.2d 107 (1979). The grant or denial of a motion for mistrial is similarly within the sound discretion of the trial court and subject to the same standard of appellate review. Marriott Corp. v. American Academy of Psychotherapists, 157 Ga.App. 497(4), 277 S.E.2d 785 (1981). Having found no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court and having been cited none, we affirm both the actions taken and the judgment entered.
5. Appellees'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hines v. State
...within the sound discretion of the trial court and subject to the same standard of appellate review.” Georgia Communications Corp. v. Horne, 174 Ga.App. 69, 70(4), 329 S.E.2d 192 (1985). 12. See Council of Superior Court Judges of Georgia, Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions, Vol. II, § 1.7......
-
Brown v. State, 70369
...we recently found no abuse of discretion in the giving of a second "Allen" charge in a civil case. Georgia Communications Corps. v. Horne, 174 Ga.App. 69, 70 (4), 329 S.E.2d 192 (1985). We find the court's morning instruction which is the only one complained about, not to be impermissibly c......
-
Jones v. Dixie O'Brien Div., O'Brien Corp.
... ... No. 69390 ... Court of Appeals of Georgia ... March 8, 1985 ... Rehearing Denied March 21, 1985 ... ...
-
Morman-Johnson v. Hathaway
...punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Milligan v. State, 307 Ga.App. 1, 4(4)(b), 703 S.E.2d 1 (2010); see Ga. Communications Corp. v. Horne, 174 Ga.App. 69, 70(4), 329 S.E.2d 192 (1985). Here we cannot say that the Allen charge was unwarranted where the jury, on the first day of deliberation,......