Loaiza v. State
Decision Date | 25 February 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 75374,75374 |
Citation | 186 Ga.App. 72,366 S.E.2d 404 |
Parties | LOAIZA v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Joseph P. Quirk, Atlanta, for appellant.
Darrell E. Wilson, Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Appellant was arrested and indicted for trafficking in cocaine. He was tried before a jury and a verdict of guilty was returned. Appellant appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence entered on the verdict.
1. Appellant filed a motion to suppress. The trial court refused to allow appellant to incorporate into the record of the hearing on his motion the transcripts of hearings on other motions to suppress which involved the same arresting officer as in this case. The trial court also refused to allow appellant to introduce evidence as to other traffic stops which had been made by the arresting officer and which were similar to the stop that the officer had made of appellant. The trial court's rulings limiting the evidentiary scope of the hearing on appellant's motion to suppress and ultimately denying the motion on the merits are enumerated as error.
As the search at issue in this case was made pursuant to the written consent of appellant, the question for determination at the hearing on the motion to suppress was whether appellant's (Emphasis in original.) Clare v. State, 135 Ga.App. 281, 284(3), 217 S.E.2d 638 (1975). The type of evidence which the trial court refused to allow appellant to present at the hearing was not probative of this dispositive issue. The trial court correctly held that the excluded evidence was irrelevant to whether appellant's consent was freely and voluntarily given.
Based upon the relevant evidence that was produced at the hearing, the trial court's denial of appellant's motion to suppress was not error. Steward v. State, 182 Ga.App. 659, 660(1), 356 S.E.2d 890 (1987).
2. Asserting prosecutorial misconduct, appellant made several motions for mistrial. The trial court's denial of these motions is enumerated as error.
The first motion for mistrial was made during voir dire. " Mize v. State, 173 Ga.App. 368, 368-369(3), 326 S.E.2d 785 (1985). See also Smalls v. State, 174 Ga.App. 698(1), 331 S.E.2d 40 (1985).
Another motion for mistrial was made during the evidentiary portion of the trial. However, in that instance, appellant did not renew his motion for mistrial after the trial court had given curative instructions to the jury. Chandler v. State, 143 Ga.App. 608, 609(2), 239 S.E.2d 158 (1977). See also Baine v. State, 181 Ga.App. 856, 858-859(4), 354 S.E.2d 177 (1987).
The last motion was in connection with the State's closing argument. The counsel for the State, purporting to quote Edmund Burke, stated that "all that is necessary for evil to survive is that good men do nothing." Upon appellant's objection, the trial court instructed the jury to disregard this comment as improper argument. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sharpe v. State
...the trial court correctly refused to declare a mistrial. Ferguson v. State, supra at 35(3), 131 S.E.2d 538; Loaiza v. State, 186 Ga.App. 72, 73(2), 366 S.E.2d 404 (1988). Appellants did not utilize the proper procedural tool, which "`was either a "challenge to the poll" (cits.) or a motion ......
-
Graham v. State
...rules of law to the evidence adduced at trial. Accordingly, we are convinced that this error was harmless. See Loaiza v. State, 186 Ga. App. 72, 74, 366 S.E.2d 404, 406 (1988) (no reversible error where trial court sustained defendant's objection to prosecutor's use of this Burke quote in c......
-
Helms v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Civ. No. 1:91-cv-1532-JEC.
... ... Applying Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the applicable substantive law of the governing state jurisdiction, this court finds that summary judgment is appropriate ... Georgia has a long history of cases on rainy day slip and ... ...
-
Cantrell v. State, A91A1312
...denied, counsel would have had to renew the motion for mistrial following the court's curative instruction. See Loaiza v. State, 186 Ga.App. 72, 73(2), 366 S.E.2d 404 (1988). See also Marlow v. State, 192 Ga.App. 670(2), 385 S.E.2d 759 With respect to the "prior dealings" ground, the failur......