Haston v. Hightower
| Decision Date | 27 January 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 41032,41032,1 |
| Parties | Rosalind M. HASTON v. Samuel J. HIGHTOWER |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Martin, Snow, Grant & Napier, T. Baldwin Martin, Macon, for plaintiff in error.
Hansell, Post, Brandon & Dorsey, Jule W. Felton, Jr., Atlanta, Wells & Adams, Charles R. Adams, Jr., Fort Valley, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This was an action in tort brought by the plaintiff to recover damages arising out of a collision between his vehicle and that of the defendant. After the call of the case but before the jury was stricken, the defendant's counsel made a motion for mistrial which was predicated upon the grounds that counsel for the plaintiff in examining the panels of prospective jurors had unduly injected the issue of the defendant's liability insurance coverage into the case by inquiring if any of the prospective jurors were policyholders of the American Fire & Casualty Insurance Company or if they did business with the local agency which represented that company. After a lengthy discussion between court and counsel in which the plaintiff's counsel enumerated his reasons for asking these questions, the motion was denied; and the case proceeded to trial. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and the defendant moved for a new trial on the usual general grounds, which were later abandoned, and on one special ground which assigned error on the refusal to grant the mistrial. The court denied the motion for new trial as amended and the exception is to that judgment, the only issue for determination by this court being whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for mistrial. Held:
Assuming, but not deciding, that the issue of the propriety of the questions propounded to the prospective jurors by the plaintiff's counsel could be raised by a motion for mistrial rather than by a motion to discard the panels of jurors already drawn and summon other panels from which to strike a jury (See Thompson v. O'Connor, 115 Ga. 120(2), 122, 41 S.E. 242; Bowling v. Hathcock, 27 Ga.App. 67(1), 107 S.E. 384; Fievet v. Curl, 96 Ga.App. 535, 101 S.E.2d 181), it is our opinion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the questions in dispute to be propounded to the prospective jurors and in denying the motion for mistrial.
Under Code Ann. § 59-705 which permits an individual examination of each juror 'touching any matter or thing which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Borkoski v. Yost, 14265
...v. Burks (1974), 52 Ala.App. 14, 288 So.2d 798, 799; Kath v. Brodie (1955), 132 Colo. 338, 287 P.2d 957, 958; Haston v. Hightower (1965), 111 Ga.App. 87, 140 S.E.2d 525, 526; Barrett v. Morris (Mo.App.1973), 495 S.W.2d 100, 103. This latter expansion generally applies only if the insurance ......
-
Parsons v. Harrison
...the instant case where one of the jurors responded affirmatively to the additional voir dire questions complained of. Haston v. Hightower, 111 Ga.App. 87, 140 S.E.2d 525, is controlling of the case sub judice. There our court decided there was no abuse of discretion in permitting the prospe......
-
Widener v. Mitchell
...of the venire . . . was proper.' Weatherbee v. Hutcheson, 114 Ga.App. 761, 766(4), 152 S.E.2d 715, 720, supra. Cf., Haston v. Hightower, 111 Ga.App. 87, 140 S.E.2d 525; Parsons v. Harrison, 133 Ga.App. 280(1), 211 S.E.2d 128; Whaley v. Sim Grady Machinery Co., 218 Ga. 838, 131 S.E.2d Judgme......
-
Hill v. Crowell
...unless clearly abused. (Cits.)" Whaley v. Sim Grady Machinery Co., 218 Ga. 838, 839, 131 S.E.2d 181, 182, supra; Haston v. Hightower, 111 Ga.App. 87, 140 S.E.2d 525 (1965). In the instant case the transcript does not reveal what questions counsel for appellant intended to ask, only that he ......