Porch v. State, 17360
| Decision Date | 13 February 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 17360,17360 |
| Citation | 63 S.E.2d 902,207 Ga. 645 |
| Parties | PORCH v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Rogers Henry Porch was indicted for rape on September 26, 1950, and the case called for trial on September 27, 1950. The attorneys for the accused moved for a continuance 'in order to prepare the necessary defense.' The court declined to continue the case, but permitted the attorneys to confer with the accused for 15 or 20 minutes. Following the conference with the accused, the attorneys made a second motion, which sought to continue the case for 24 hours, stating that
By a counter-showing the State produced evidence: that the accused was arrested July 18, 1950, and held under a warrant charging rape; that two other attorneys had communicated with court officers concerning the case, one on August 25, 1950, another on September 11, 1950; that on September 21, 1950, both of his present attorneys conferred with the accused at Reidsville, Georgia, where he was then incarcerated, and on September 23, 1950, one of the attorneys was in Jasper, the county site, 'working in regard to this case.' The sheriff testified that he told one of the attorneys on Tuesday (the day before the trial) '* * * that the prisoner was at the jail and it would be alright if he wanted to see him.'
During the counter-showing made by the State on the hearing of the motion to continue, the sheriff, in accounting for the whereabouts of the accused since his arrest, testified, 'He was a prisoner escaped from Pickens County, and I sent him to the Cherokee County jail,' to which the attorney for the accused stated: 'I would like to state to the court that the sheriff by his declaration and statement has placed the defendant's character in evidence by stating he is an ex-convict, in the presence of these five panels of jurors, and we now say for the record that they are disqualified, and we object to the same.'
When Wallace Wheeler was on the stand, testifying as to a conversation with the accused, he stated: '* * * I then began asking him questions regarding the way he was in the gang and about his escape.' Counsel for the accused made a motion for a mistrial. The court stated: 'You didn't object to that evidence, did you?' Counsel replied: 'I am objecting to it now.' The Court: As to this the record shows that the accused in his statement said:
At the conclusion of the statement of the accused, his counsel offered to permit the solicitor-general to cross-examine him, stating: The Court (addressing the defendant): Attorney for the accused: 'Do you hold that he is not subject to cross-examination.' The Court: 'Yes.' Attorney: 'We move for a mistrial on the ground that the right of this defendant to be cross-examined by this solicitor-general has been denied him by the court.' The Solicitor-General: The Court: 'I overrule the motion.' Attorney: The Court: 'He states that he doesn't desire to cross-examine him, and I don't know that you can make him do it.' Attorney: 'I want to know if the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cauley v. State, s. 48422
...panel was deficient in number, raises no issue that we can decide. The oral objection or complaint was not open to them. Porch v. State, 207 Ga. 645(2), 63 S.E.2d 902; Thompson v. Buice, 162 Ga. 556(2), 134 S.E. 303. A jury was in fact selected from the 45 jurors left on the panel after sus......
-
Grier v. State, 19198
...168(6), 15 S.E. 38; Tye v. State, 198 Ga. 262, 265, 31 S.E.2d 471; Stanford v. State, 201 Ga. 173, 38 S.E.2d 823; Porch v. State, 207 Ga. 645, 646 (2-b), 63 S.E.2d 902; Hubbard v. State, 208 Ga. 472, 474, 67 S.E.2d 562; Thornton v. State, 209 Ga. 51, 52, 70 S.E.2d 733; Callahan v. State, 20......
-
Smith v. State
...but the law does not allow him to be placed under oath. Code, § 38-415; Roberts v. State, 189 Ga. 36, 5 S.E.2d 340; Porch v. State, 207 Ga. 645(3), 63 S.E.2d 902. Where, as here, the defendant offered to subject herself to cross-examination not under oath and the court refused to permit her......
-
Manor v. State, 25260
...The ground cannot be considered because the challenge was not in writing. Thompson v. Buice, 162 Ga. 556, 134 S.E. 303; Porch v. State, 207 Ga. 645, 63 S.E.2d 902. 6. Enumerations of error 7, 24, 25 and 26 complain of the admission of certain testimony, offered by the State as to the taking......