Goins v. State, 71835
| Decision Date | 22 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 71835,71835 |
| Citation | 177 Ga.App. 536,339 S.E.2d 790 |
| Parties | GOINS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
John R. Emmett, Trenton, for appellant.
David L. Lomenick, Jr., Dist. Atty., James D. Franklin, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
On appeal from his conviction of burglary, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to give two of his requests to charge, after having represented that they would be given. He further contends that the court erred in denying his motion for mistrial, based on alleged improper communications involving certain members of the jury.
At the conclusion of the evidence, defense counsel inquired of the trial judge which of his requests to charge would be given, and the trial judge replied, "I think I'll give all of them." However, the court failed to give the defendant's requested charges that a person could not be convicted on the basis of bare suspicion and that mere association with others involved in crimes would not authorize conviction. Held:
1. The state contends that all of the legal principles contained in the two requests to charge were contained in the charge given by the court. We agree that the principle of "mere suspicion" was covered by the court's charge as given; however, no portion of the charge covered the principle of "mere association." As the state's case relied heavily upon the testimony of an accomplice, it is clear that the requested charge was appropriate. Furthermore, the record shows that defense counsel made a timely objection to the court's failure to give such a charge; and the defendant's failure also to request the opportunity to reargue the case before the jury cannot, under the circumstances, be considered a waiver of the objection. Although a different result might obtain in situations where the court gives a particular charge after initially indicating that it would not do so (see, e.g., Maddox v. Thomas, 151 Ga.App. 477(1), 260 S.E.2d 355 (1979); Thomas v. State, 168 Ga.App. 587(4), 309 S.E.2d 881 (1983); Hudson v. State, 150 Ga.App. 126(3), 257 S.E.2d 312 (1979)), it is obvious that the opportunity to present a new argument in the present case, without reference to the "mere association" principle, would have availed the defendant nothing. Accord Chase v. State, 148 Ga.App. 690(3), 252 S.E.2d 194 (1979). See generally Evans v. State, 146 Ga.App. 480(1), 246 S.E.2d 482 (1978). Accordingly, we hold that the failure to give the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Speed v. State
-
Moon v. State
...to his detriment by the court's somewhat ambiguous indication that the requested instruction would be given. Compare Goins v. State, 177 Ga.App. 536, 339 S.E.2d 790 (1986). 2. From the time of his arrest until shortly before this trial, Moon remained in Tennessee while some of the criminal ......
-
Wicks v. State
...trial court still erred, because it stated that it would give a curative instruction, but then failed to do so. See Goins v. State, 177 Ga.App. 536(1), 339 S.E.2d 790 (1986). The record reflects that, although the trial court correctly recognized that the argument was not improper, it indic......
-
Stack-Thorpe v. State
...charge, the proper remedy is for the defendant to request an opportunity to reargue the case); but cf. Goins v. State, 177 Ga.App. 36-537(1), 339 S.E.2d 790 (1986) (if the defendant timely objects to the court's charge, the failure to request an opportunity to reargue the case does not waiv......