Phillips v. State, 27796
| Decision Date | 13 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 27796,27796 |
| Citation | 230 Ga. 444,197 S.E.2d 720 |
| Parties | Lum PHILLIPS, Jr. v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Glenn Zell, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Dennis S. Mackin, James H. Mobley, Jr., Morris H. Rosenberg, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Courtney Wilder Stanton, Daniel I. MacIntyre, Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Lum Phillips, Jr., was convicted of the offense of armed robbery and sentenced to seven years to serve five years with the balance of the sentence probated. The appellant appeals to this court. Held:
1. Charles B. Bownens, Jr., was called as a witness for the appellant. He testified that on the day of the robbery the appellant was in his store between 4 and 5 p.m. The robbery occurred at 4:15 p.m. The evidence shows that Charles B. Bowens, Jr., was a business partner of the appellant. On cross examination the prosecutor asked the appellant the full name of his business partner. The appellant replied that his name was Charles Bowens and that he did not know whether he had a middle name. 'Q . . . isn't he in fact the Charles D. Bowens that was found guilty of six counts of auto larceny.' An objection was made by the appellant to the question and the objection was sustained by the court.
The appellant contends here that it was the duty of the trial court to prevent this purportedly prejudicial matter from being brought before the jury and to rebuke counsel under Code § 81-1009 without a request to do so.
We do not agree. There was no motion for the rebuke of counsel nor for a mistrial. The objection of the appellant was sustained. If the appellant desired the trial court to reprimand counsel, he should have so moved. See Purcell v. Hill, 220 Ga. 663, 141 S.E.2d 152; Pritchard v. State, 225 Ga. 690, 171 S.E.2d 130.
2. The trial court charged the jury:
The appellant contends that the emphasized portion of this charge is in conflict with Code Ann. § 26-605...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pye v. State
...sustained, there is no reversible error absent a request from the complaining party for further corrective action. Phillips v. State, 230 Ga. 444(1), 197 S.E.2d 720 (1973); Garner v. State, 199 Ga. App. 468, 469(2)(a), 405 S.E.2d 299 (1991). As to the second question, Pye did not object and......
-
Callahan v. State
...this transcript. As a result, he cannot now complain of the court's failure to more affirmatively rebuke the prosecutor. Phillips v. State, 230 Ga. 444, 197 S.E.2d 720. Finally, if Callahan was not satisfied with the trial court's action, he was obligated to renew his motion for mistrial. I......
-
O'Neal v. State
...v. State, 276 Ga. 829, 834(4), 583 S.E.2d 873 (2003); Kyler v. State, 270 Ga. 81, 82, 508 S.E.2d 152 (1998); Phillips v. State, 230 Ga. 444(1), 197 S.E.2d 720 (1973); Walley v. State, 298 Ga.App. 483, 485(2), 680 S.E.2d 550 (2009); Williams v. Terry, 197 Ga.App. 209, 210(3), 398 S.E.2d 239 ......
-
Parks v. State, 29821
...the jury on the law of criminal intention. It is not necessary that the charge be in the exact language of the Code. Phillips v. State, 230 Ga. 444(2), 197 S.E.2d 720; Daniels v. State, 230 Ga. 126(1), 195 S.E.2d 3. The defendant also enumerates as error the court's charge on the legal defi......