McGarl v. State
Decision Date | 03 February 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 65548,65548 |
Citation | 165 Ga.App. 323,301 S.E.2d 58 |
Parties | McGARL v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Ralph J. Baldwin, Savannah, for appellant.
Spencer Lawton, Jr., Dist. Atty., M. Kay Jackson, David T. Lock, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
Defendant appeals his conviction for burglary and attempted burglary. Held:
1. When a prosecution witness was being cross-examined, the trial court, on the state's objection, refused to permit defense counsel to elicit that the witness had refused to discuss the case with defense counsel prior to trial. The purpose of the questioning was to show possible bias on the part of the witness. The ruling is enumerated as error.
Pretermitting whether the ruling improperly restricted cross-examination as defendant contends, we find no merit in the enumeration as no predicate for the admission of such testimony was established.
Schamroth v. State, 84 Ga.App. 580(2), 584-5, 66 S.E.2d 413.
2. The witnesses were sequestered by a police detective was permitted to remain in the courtroom to assist the prosecutor. During the course of the trial the prosecutor sent the detective to telephone another police officer witness whose presence was needed. Defendant's motion for mistrial on the ground that the rule of sequestration had been violated was denied, which is asserted as error.
Code Ann. § 38-1703 establishes the rule of sequestration of witnesses and "provides only that witnesses be examined out of the hearing of each other, and there is no requirement that prospective witnesses remain free of other contact or communications." Mathis v. State, 249 Ga. 454(2), 455, 291 S.E.2d 489.
The detective was questioned under oath by the court and testified that upon the prosecutor's instructions he left the courtroom, called the other officer, told him to come to the court, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Walden v. State, 69253
...Mathis v. State, 249 Ga. 454(2), 291 S.E.2d 489 (1982); Stevens v. State, 247 Ga. 698(6), 278 S.E.2d 398 (1981); McGarl v. State, 165 Ga.App. 323(2), 301 S.E.2d 58 (1983). Further, it is apparent from the transcript that trial counsel was prepared for trial and proceeded to conduct a viable......
- McGriff v. State, s. 65476