Limbrick v. State, 58544
| Decision Date | 30 November 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 58544,58544 |
| Parties | LIMBRICK v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
William F. Braziel, Sr., Savannah, for appellant.
Andrew J. Ryan, III, Dist. Atty., Robert M. Hitch, III, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
We affirm appellant's conviction of rape, aggravated sodomy, kidnapping and robbery.
1. Citing Code § 27-2202, appellant contends the trial court erred in allowing both the assistant district attorney and the district attorney to present the state's argument, which, in time sequence, was the middle one. That contention is meritless. The above Code section reads: "Not more than two counsel shall be permitted to argue any cause for each side, except by express leave of the court; and in no case shall more than one counsel be heard in conclusion." We agree with the state and the trial court that that law forbids more than one counsel to present the argument last to be heard by the jury. That is, the final clause of that section applies to the party exercising the privilege of the final jury argument chronologically, the "last say." Here, appellant not the state, had that argument.
2. Appellant's remaining enumerations of error concern the trial court's use of its inherent discretion in conducting its courtroom. We find no abuse. See Bryan v. State, 148 Ga.App. 428, 251 S.E.2d 338 (1978).
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheriff v. State, S03G0492.
...Sheriff v. State, supra, 258 Ga.App. at 424, 574 S.E.2d 449. In so doing, the Court of Appeals overruled Limbrick v. State, 152 Ga. App. 615, 263 S.E.2d 502 (1979), where the Court of Appeals had held that the statutory limitation of one attorney making the closing argument applied only "to......
-
Farmer v. Employers Ins. of Wausau
... ... Martin and Hames as to the leased equipment provided that return loads "from without the State of Georgia to some destination within the State of Georgia" were the "sole responsibility of ... ...
-
Sheriff v. State
...Accordingly, the trial court did not err in limiting Sheriff to a single attorney in making his concluding argument. We overrule Limbrick v. State6 which limited only the chronologically concluding argument to a single attorney, ignoring the plain language of OCGA § 17-8-70, that "[i]n no c......
-
Criminal Law - Laura D. Hogue and Franklin J. Hogue
...v. Wigley, 178 Ga. App. 558, 343 S.E.2d 788 (1986); Taylor v. Powell, 158 Ga. App. 339, 280 S.E.2d 386 (1981); Limbrick v. State, 152 Ga. App. 615, 263 S.E.2d 502 (1979). 309. Bentley v. B.M.W., Inc., 209 Ga. App. 526, 433 S.E.2d 719 (1993); City of Monroe v. Jordan, 201 Ga. App. 332, 411 S......