Mathis v. State, 68694
| Decision Date | 12 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 68694,68694 |
| Citation | 320 S.E.2d 861,171 Ga.App. 620 |
| Parties | MATHIS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Thomas M. Hackel, Waycross, for appellant.
Harry D. Dixon, Jr., Dist. Atty., Richard E. Currie, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Greg Mathis appeals the denial of his motion for new trial following his conviction of the burglary of a clothing store. Held:
1. In response to an objection by the state's attorney during appellant's opening statement, the trial court refused to permit a comment that a former boyfriend of a state's witness was presently in prison, stating that Although the trial court subsequently allowed appellant to elicit such evidence at trial, appellant contends that the court's remark constituted an impermissible comment on the evidence.
The statutory inhibition (OCGA § 17-8-55) against an expression or intimation of opinion by the trial court as to the facts of the case does not generally extend to colloquies between the judge and counsel regarding the admissibility of evidence. See Pratt v. State, 167 Ga.App. 819(2), 307 S.E.2d 714 (1983); Bradley v. State, 137 Ga.App. 670(8), 224 S.E.2d 778 (1976). Furthermore, "remarks of a judge assigning a reason for his ruling are neither an expression of opinion nor a comment on the evidence." Johnson v. State, 246 Ga. 126, 128, 269 S.E.2d 18 (1980). Under the circumstances of the instant case, the comments of the trial court did not constitute an improper expression or intimation of opinion.
2. Appellant also contends that the trial court erred in improperly restricting his right to make an opening statement. The trial court has the right and duty to govern the scope of argument by counsel both prior to and after the presentation of evidence. See generally Roland v. State, 161 Ga.App. 197(3), 291 S.E.2d 41 (1982); Pilcher v. State, 91 Ga.App. 428(1), 85 S.E.2d 618 (1955). The proper range of comment by counsel is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. Sanders v. State, 156 Ga.App. 44(2), 274 S.E.2d 88 (1980). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in this case.
3. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in charging the jury as to recent possession of stolen property. A leather jacket obtained from appellant was identified as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kinsman v. State
...not generally extend to colloquies between the judge and counsel regarding the admissibility of evidence. [Cits.]" Mathis v. State, 171 Ga.App. 620(1), 320 S.E.2d 861 (1984). The comment at issue in Kinsman's 17th enumeration of error falls into the permitted category, and no violation 14. ......
-
Whitt v. State, A94A1501
...not generally extend to colloquies between the judge and counsel regarding the admissibility of evidence. (Cits.)' Mathis v. State, 171 Ga.App. 620(1), 320 S.E.2d 861 (1984)." Emanuel v. State, 195 Ga.App. 302, 304(3), 393 S.E.2d 74, rev'd on other grounds at 260 Ga. 425, 396 S.E.2d 225. In......
-
Lobdell v. State
...an expression of opinion nor a comment on the evidence.' Johnson v. State, 246 Ga. 126, 128, 269 S.E.2d 18 (1980)." Mathis v. State, 171 Ga.App. 620(1), 320 S.E.2d 861 (1984). 10. The appellant asserts that the district attorney impermissibly commented upon the appellant's failure to testif......
-
Johnson v. State
...violated OCGA § 17-8-57 by improperly commenting on some testimony offered by the defense. We find no error. See Mathis v. State, 171 Ga.App. 620(1), 320 S.E.2d 861 (1984). 8. Contrary to Johnson's eighth enumeration, Johnson was properly sentenced to two life sentences for armed robbery an......