Hunter v. State, 68026
| Decision Date | 16 March 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 68026,68026 |
| Citation | 170 Ga.App. 356,317 S.E.2d 332 |
| Parties | HUNTER v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
William C. Puckett, Jr., Decatur, for appellant.
Robert E. Wilson, Dist. Atty., Susan Brooks, James Richter, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
Defendant was convicted of the offense of rape. Following the denial of his motion for new trial he appeals. Held:
1. The first enumeration of error contends the trial court erred in refusing to allow defense counsel "to ask the entire panel of prospective jurors if any of them had an opinion as to whether sex offenses were being handled adequately by the courts." There is no merit in this complaint. The law is clear in this state that the voir dire provided by OCGA § 15-12-133 is not unlimited in scope. See Hart v. State, 137 Ga.App. 644(1), 224 S.E.2d 755; Merrill v. State, 130 Ga.App. 745, 750(3)(c), 204 S.E.2d 632. Counsel attempted here to question the panel with reference to the issue of punishment or final resolution by the courts in general, and this was an improper consideration for the jurors who potentially were merely to decide on the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
2. The remaining enumeration of error contends the trial court erred in ruling that testimony about a prior photograph would open the door for further explanation of the circumstances surrounding the making of it. The state had introduced into evidence a photograph taken of the defendant in 1979, which photograph was used to identify the defendant by the rape victim in a display of photographs to her. Defendant had offered an exhibit showing the defendant as he looked shortly after his arrest in the case sub judice. The defendant sought a ruling from the court with reference to testimony by him to explain the alleged difference in his facial appearance. The trial court ruled that any testimony regarding when the photograph was made would open the door for the district attorney to question him about the fact that it was taken when he was previously under arrest in another case. Whereupon, counsel for defendant did not pursue the matter stating merely that he would "let it ride." Therefore, no objection was made and no exception was taken to the ruling by the trial court. Clearly, the court's ruling was that if the defendant testified that the photograph was made in 1979 in a previous case the prosecution could go into the matter even if the defendant was put up for the limited purpose...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCoy v. State
...S.E.2d 402 (1983). Moreover, questions calling for an opinion by a juror on matters of law are improper. See id.; Hunter v. State, 170 Ga.App. 356(1), 317 S.E.2d 332 (1984); Petty v. State, 179 Ga.App. 767(1), 347 S.E.2d 663 (1986). The prohibited question was not phrased or designed so as ......
-
Walden v. State, 69253
...courtroom. We note first that even with timely objection, neither would be grounds for reversal. See, respectively, Hunter v. State, 170 Ga.App. 356(2), 317 S.E.2d 332 (1984), and Brewer v. State, 162 Ga.App. 228(1), 291 S.E.2d 87 (1982). See generally Mathis v. State, 249 Ga. 454(2), 291 S......
-
Ponder v. State
...for an opinion by a juror on matters of law are improper. See Williams v. State, supra at 70(2), 299 S.E.2d 402; Hunter v. State, 170 Ga.App. 356(1), 317 S.E.2d 332 (1984); Petty v. State, 179 Ga.App. 767(1), 347 S.E.2d 663 (1986). "The [prohibited] question is not phrased or designed so as......
-
Wells v. State, 75547
...is a 'mug shot' from the files of the police department does not put the defendant's character in issue. [Cits.]" Hunter v. State, 170 Ga.App. 356, 357, 317 S.E.2d 332 (1984). Judgment BANKE, P.J., concurs. CARLEY, J., concurs in Divisions 1, 3 and in judgment. ...