McLaughlin v. State, 49138
| Citation | 132 Ga.App. 88,207 S.E.2d 629 |
| Decision Date | 12 June 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 49138,No. 3,49138,3 |
| Parties | Forrest McLAUGHLIN v. The STATE |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Robert L. Ridley, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Joel M. Feldman, Isaac Jenrette, Morris H. Rosenberg, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Appellant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. A motion and amended motion for a new trial were overruled by the trial court and appellant appeals.
1. Appellant enumerates that the verdict is (1) contrary to the law, (2) contrary to the evidence, and, (3) that the court erred in failing to direct a verdict for the defendant. On appeal we are compelled to construe the evidence in support of the verdict. Ryder v. State, 121 Ga.App. 796, 798, 175 S.E.2d 882. Suffice it to say that the evidence at trial, while conflicting, will support the jury's verdict. The refusal of the trial judge to direct a verdict of acquittal was not error as it was not demanded as a matter of law. The enumerated errors are without merit.
2. Appellant complains that the trial court improperly withdrew a portion of the charge to the jury concerning a partial charge as to impeachment. Following the charge, appellant's counsel objected and the trial judge asked if it was desired to have the jury recalled so that he could tell them to disregard the charge. Counsel replied 'Well, we might as well.' The charge was duly withdrawn, the jury's attention invited specifically to the objectionable portion of the charge and, the jury again was directed distinctly and unequivocally, to disregard it and not to consider it. The procedure employed by the trial judge was in accord with the error curing practice approved in Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Ray, 133 Ga. 126(1), 65 S.E. 281, and we find no error. However, appellant urges that this was an incorrect procedure and that the entire charge should have been withdrawn and a new charge given. We know of no authority which compels such action and we are furnished no authority for the proposition. No request for recharging was made at trial, nor do we discern any prejudice to the appellant in any event. Cf. Walker v. State, 226 Ga. 292, 294, 174 S.E.2d 440.
3. The remaining enumeration of error is without merit.
Judgment affirmed.
The 'remaining enumeration of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blanchard v. Westview Cemetery, Inc.
...leaving with the jury the issue of damages for wounded feelings, etc., hence no double damages were involved. See McLaughlin v. State, 132 Ga.App. 88(2), 207 S.E.2d 629. 6. The trial judge did not err in submitting the issue of the defendant's good or bad faith to the jury, as complained of......
-
Jackson v. State, 52794
...they must find the offense charged occurred. See Central of Ga. Railway Co. v. Ray, 133 Ga. 126(1), 65 S.E. 281; McLaughlin v. State, 132 Ga.App. 88(2), 207 S.E.2d 629. 7. Having considered each and every enumeration of error which the defendant had not abandoned expressly, or impliedly, by......