Harris v. State, s. 44617
| Decision Date | 03 September 1969 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 44617,44618,No. 1,s. 44617,1 |
| Citation | 170 S.E.2d 743,120 Ga.App. 359 |
| Parties | W. L. HARRIS v. The STATE (two cases) |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
E. B. Shaw, Atlanta, for appellant.
Edward E. McGarity, Dist. Atty., McDonough, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The defendant was tried, convicted and sentenced in two cases on indictments charging him with burglary in the same location on separate occasions and stealing and carrying away differing items on each occasion. His motions for new trial complaining of the overruling of the motion to suppress evidence, and other matters, were overruled by the trial judge and he appealed in each case. Held:
1. The motion to suppress depended upon whether the defendant had been properly and timely advised as to his constitutional rights, and as to this the evidence on the motion was in direct conflict, and the trial judge as the trior of facts was authorized to overrule the motion to suppress the evidence; further, none of the evidence sought to be suppressed was introduced in evidence in case No. 44618.
2. Counsel for the State when propounding voir dire questions under Code, § 59-705 as amended by the Act approved February 19, 1951 (Ga.L. 1951, pp. 214, 216; Code Ann. § 59-705) asked a prospective juror whether he believed 'that a person had the right for peaceful enjoyment of his property without the intervention from the outside of other persons.' The asking of such a question was not equivalent or tantamount to pointing a finger at the defendant and saying that the defendant was the guilty one, and affords no grounds for a mistrial.
3. Counsel for the defendant objected to action of the prosecuting attorney in shaking a finger at one of the defendant's witnesses. The trial court overruled the objection. No valid reason is given as to why this action of the trial judge was harmful, if error. Nothing in the record indicates that when the prosecuting attorney was shaking his finger at the witness, that he was close to the witness, or that his manner of speech or demeanor was in any way intimidating or objectionable.
4. The following argument purportedly covers several enumerations of error not already ruled upon: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Merrill v. State, 48419
...S.E.2d 798; Tolbert v. State, 224 Ga. 291, 294, 161 S.E.2d 279; Young v. State, 113 Ga.App. 497, 498, 148 S.E.2d 461; Harris v. State, 120 Ga.App. 359(1), 170 S.E.2d 743. This alone authorized the overruling of the motion.' Guest v. State, 230 Ga. 569, 571, 198 S.E.2d 158, Therefore, the se......
-
Swift v. State
...to wit: Williams v. State,119 Ga.App. 557, 167 S.E.2d 756; Raines v. State, 123 Ga.App. 794, 182 S.E.2d 491; and Harris v. State, 120 Ga.App. 359, 170 S.E.2d 743. None of the cited cases holds that any evidence is sufficient to authorize the trial judge to make a finding on motion to suppre......
-
Cook v. State
...the conflict in the testimony and determine tha the collection was in fact in plain view. Code Ann. § 27-313(b); Harris v. State, 120 Ga.App. 359(1), 170 S.E.2d 743. A police officer may seize what is in plain sight if, as here, he is in a place wher he is constitutionally entitled to be. K......
-
Anderson v. State
...this to be the issue, it is a factual issue to be resolved by the trior of fact-the judge hearing the motion. Harris v. State, 120 Ga.App. 359(1), 170 S.E.2d 743. He must determine issues of credibility, the weight and sufficiency of the evidence, resolve conflicts and construe the evidence......