Newberry v. State, 47084
| Decision Date | 13 April 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 47084,No. 3,47084,3 |
| Parties | Bertha E. NEWBERRY v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Harl C. Duffey, Jr., Robert J. Evans, Rome, for appellant.
F. Larry Salmon, Solicitor, Rome, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The defendant was convicted on charges of possession and sale of illegal liquors. When a State's witness was testifying he denied having had any transaction with the defendant, whereas he had told the investigating agent that he had purchased certain whiskey from her on credit (the whiskey having been placed in evidence), and the district attorney interposed a plea of entrapment and asked leave to cross examine the witness. Defendant's counsel objected: 'We do not feel that sufficient foundation and ground has been laid to support the district attorney's plea of surprise and entrapment to the extent that he would be able to cross examine the witness and/or have the officer testify as to what the witness told him . . . We say the plea of entrapment has not been sustained, and he certainly should not be allowed to cross examine this witness.'
Error is enumerated on the overruling of the objection, and upon the court's refusal to give a requested charge on circumstantial evidence, and upon the overruling of defendant's motion for new trial. Held:
1. The general grounds of the motion for new trial are without merit.
2. The objection to the district attorney's plea of entrapment was too indefinite to raise any question for determination. Counsel did not indicate what foundation should have been laid for supporting the plea. Freeman v. Young, 147 Ga. 699(3a), 95 S.E. 236; Barkley v. State, 190 Ga. 641(3), 10 S.E.2d 32.
Other or further grounds urged for the first time in the motion for new trial or in the brief on appeal, but which were not urged before the trial court at the time the ruling was made cannot be considered. House v. State, 227 Ga. 257, 181 S.E.2d 31; Morris v. State, 200 Ga. 471, 478(1), 37 S.E.2d 345; Lundy v. State, 119 Ga.App. 585(1), 168 S.E.2d 199; Jenkins v. Board of Zoning Appeals of City of Columbus, 122 Ga.App. 412(2), 177 S.E.2d 204.
3. While the witness was testifying and after the district attorney had been granted leave to cross examine him, he was asked whether he had told Agent Evans that he had bought the whiskey for.$7.00, on credit, and answered 'I guess you could call it that.' There was objection that the answer was not responsive to the question, which we find to be without merit.
He was also asked 'Where do you come up with the figure of.$7.00 on credit if the woman didn't (sell) you anything?' and replied, 'Well, that's what it sells for, I reckon.' Objection on the ground that this was repetitious was without merit.
4. A motion for mistrial based upon the questions asked and the answers elicited in Division 3 on the ground that these were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fatora v. State
...appeal are limited to those which were urged before the trial court. Kitchens v. State, 228 Ga. 624(1) (187 SE2d 268); Newberry v. State, 126 Ga.App. 81, 82 (189 SE2d 891)." Harrison v. Lawhorne, 130 Ga.App. 314, 318(5), 203 S.E.2d 292. Consequently, the issues raised in this enumeration of......
-
Roberts v. Farmer
...755, 158 S.E.2d 375; House v. State, 227 Ga. 257, 181 S.E.2d 31; Gaddis v. Moss, 117 Ga.App. 810(2), 162 S.E.2d 255; Newberry v. State, 126 Ga.App. 81, 82, 189 S.E.2d 891. Judgment EBERHARDT, P.J., and DEEN, J., concur. ...
-
Harrison v. Lawhorne
...are limited to those which were urged before the trial court. Kitchens v. State, 228 Ga. 624(1), 187 S.E.2d 268; Newberry v. State, 126 Ga.App. 81, 82(2), 189 S.E.2d 891. Judgment HALL, P.J., concurs. EVANS, J., concurs specially. EVANS, Judge (concurring specially). I concur fully in the j......
-
Bearden v. State, 64261
...and that if the jury should find any such doubt as to the defendant's guilt they should acquit. See in this connection Newberry v. State, 126 Ga.App. 81, 189 S.E.2d 891. 3. Defendant's enumeration of error No. 4 complains of the trial court's refusal to give the requested charge that when c......