Hiatt v. State, 54640
| Decision Date | 10 November 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 54640,No. 1,54640,1 |
| Citation | 144 Ga.App. 298,240 S.E.2d 894 |
| Parties | William P. HIATT v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
G. Fred Bostick, Smyrna, for appellant.
Herbert A. Rivers, Sol., J. Stephen Schuster, Asst. Sol., Marietta, for appellee.
The defendant was charged by accusation with three counts of misdemeanor, i. e.: driving under the influence of intoxicants; endangering the bodily safety of persons on a public road by consciously disregarding the safety of others by pulling his automobile in front of traffic (reckless conduct); and, driving without having in his possession and holding a valid driver's license as required by law and not being exempt from the provisions requiring a license. He was found guilty of all three counts and sentenced to serve 12 months on Count 1; six months on Count 2 to run consecutively to the 12 months on Count 1, and six months on Count 3 to run consecutively to the six-month sentence on Count 2. Defendant appeals. Held:
1. During the trial counsel for defendant made two motions for directed verdict of not guilty and for acquittal. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of guilty of all three counts. There is no merit in the enumeration of error complaining of the denial of the motions. Butler v. State, 130 Ga.App. 469, 476, 203 S.E.2d 558; McDuffie v. State, 135 Ga.App. 616(2), 218 S.E.2d 320.
2. A charge of possession of marijuana had been severed, but during the trial the State introduced testimony that the officers found a green leafy material in the car, that the defendant and the automobile smelled of marijuana and the defendant appeared to be under the influence of marijuana, as well as an alcoholic beverage. This testimony was relevant and material. Based upon this evidence the court did not err in denying defendant's motion for mistrial because of the introduction of testimony involving a "green leafy material," "green leafy substance," "leafy material," and "marijuana." Nor did the court err in denying the defendant's motion to strike from the record any and all testimony in regard to the alleged leafy material found in the automobile with the defendant. See Williams v. State, 223 Ga. 773(1), 158 S.E.2d 373; State v. Luke, 232 Ga. 815, 816, 209 S.E.2d 165.
3. Since the three counts arose out of one occurrence the court did not err in denying defendant's motion to sever the charge of driving without a license from Counts 1 and 2 (driving under the influence and reckless conduct in driving the automobile). See Code § 26-506.
4. The court held an in camera inspection of the solicitor's file and found no exculpatory material. Defendant has not produced any evidence that the State withheld exculpatory materials. There is no merit in the complaint that the court erred in denying defendant's motion for pre-trial discovery by refusing to hold an in camera inspection of county records concerning the defendant. Defendant contended that in some vague manner an in camera inspection would disclose certain favorable information with reference to this case with particular reference to the records of the safety director for Cobb County who was called as a witness for the defendant. However, none of his testimony discloses that he possessed any exculpatory information. The court did not err in denying the motion for pre-trial discovery by holding an in camera inspection of the county records concerning the defendant.
5. Generally, a person indicted for or charged with an offense against the laws of this State is entitled as a matter of right to be arraigned before pleading to the indictment. But, whenever an issue of law is presented by the defendant without demanding a formal arraignment this amounts to a waiver of arraignment as to issues of law or fact. This is a plea to the merits. See Kincade v. State, 14 Ga.App. 544(2), 81 S.E. 910. The defendant had previously been charged but the same nol prossed and only shortly before trial was he again charged by accusation. Whereupon defendant made a number of motions and obtained rulings thereon. After consideration of several of the motions, he insisted on his motion that he had never been formally arraigned and that the charges against him should be dismissed. Thus, the defendant obtained rulings upon issues of law in this case before insisting upon his motion for formal arraignment. By his conduct he has waived such request. See Sisson v. State, 141 Ga.App. 559, 561(4), 234 S.E.2d 146. There is no merit in this complaint.
6. Defendant contends that the court erred in denying the defendant's constitutional right to assist his counsel in his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cargill v. State
...the discretion of the trial judge as to whether the defendant could personally conduct part or all of the case. Hiatt v. State, 144 Ga.App. 298 (6), 240 S.E.2d 894 (1977) and cits.7 This rule provides, in part, "In cases in which the death penalty is sought, the trial judge shall address al......
-
Burney v. State
...in which the constitutional right of self-representation will be exercised. See Roberts v. State, 14 Ga. 18 (1853); Hiatt v. State, 144 Ga.App. 298(6), 240 S.E.2d 894 (1977); Heard v. State, 126 Ga.App. 62, 65, 189 S.E.2d 895 (1972); Moyers v. State, 61 Ga.App. 324, 328, 6 S.E.2d 438 (1939)......
-
Powers v. State
...the trial judge did not abuse his discretion as shown by the circumstances confronting him during the trial." Hiatt v. State, 144 Ga.App. 298, 300, 240 S.E.2d 894 (1977). 4. Appellant enumerates as error the refusal to give the following requested charge: "Where the facts in evidence and al......
-
Ferrell v. State
...v. State, 137 Ga.App. 840, 225 S.E.2d 77." Sisson v. State, 141 Ga.App. 559, 561(4), 234 S.E.2d 146, 148 (1977); Hiatt v. State, 144 Ga.App. 298, 299(5), 240 S.E.2d 894 (1977). 4. Ferrell insists that his motion for directed verdict should have been granted on the speeding charge because no......