Pritchard v. State, 25441
| Decision Date | 06 November 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 25441,25441 |
| Citation | 171 S.E.2d 130,225 Ga. 690 |
| Parties | J. B. PRITCHARD v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. If defendant's counsel is not satisfied with the action taken by the trial court in response to a motion for mistrial, such motion must be promptly renewed in order to later raise such contention on appeal.
2. Where in ruling on an objection to evidence the trial court, in a colloquy with counsel, repeats such evidence, it is not an expression of opinion in violation of Code § 81-1104.
3. Where in the formal charge, in order, to pinpoint evidence which has been excluded, the judge in instructing the jury not to consider certain evidence repeats its substance, it is not an expression of opinion in violation of Code § 81-1104.
Margaret Hopkins, James R. Venable, H. G. McBrayer, Jr., Atlanta, for appellant.
Andrew J. Whalen Jr., Dist. Atty., Griffin, Ben J. Miller, Dist. Atty., Thomaston, Arthur K. bolton, Atty. Gen., Harold N. Hill, Jr., Exec. Asst. Atty. Gen., Marion O. Gordon, William R. Childers, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
This is the second appearance of this case in this court. On the first appearance the defendant's conviction for robbery by use of an offensive weapon was set aside and the case remanded for a new trial because the testimony of an accomplice was not sufficiently corroborated. Pritchard v. State, 224 Ga. 776, 164 S.E.2d 808. On the second trial the jury returned a verdict of guilty with a recommendation of mercy by the jury and a life sentence was imposed upon the defendant. No question as to the sufficiency of the evidence is raised in the present appeal. The sole questions raised relate to the refusal of the trial court to grant a mistrial and the court's allegedly expressing his opinion as to what had been proved in violation of Code § 81-1104.
1. The first witness called for the State, an admitted accomplice of the defendant, when asked about a conversation with the defendant, volunteered information which was not responsive to the question asked. The defendant's counsel moved for a mistrial which was overruled, but the court did instruct the jury that the answer was not responsive and that they should disregard it completely, that such issue was not involved in the case and since the answer was not responsive to the question asked he would not reprimand the State's attorney.
'If defendant's counsel was not satisfied with such action by the judge, he should have renewed his motion Promptly and by his failure to do so the judge was in our opinion authorized to conclude that defendant's counsel was satisfied with the action he had taken.' (Emphasis supplied). Purcell v. Hill, 220 Ga. 663, 664, 141 S.E.2d 152. The defendant's counsel did not promptly renew the motion for mistrial and a mere general renewal of all motions and objections made during the course of the trial at the conclusion of all evidence is not a prompt renewal of the motion for mistrial. Accordingly, enumerations of error 1 and 2 are without merit.
2. Enumeration of error numbered 3 complains that the trial court violated the provisions of Code § 81-1104 and expressed an opinion as to what had been proved in the case.
On two occasions during the trial, after counsel for the defendant invoked a ruling by the trial court, a colloquy between the court and counsel ensued and the judge in explaining his ruling to counsel for the defendant, stated the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watson v. State
...instruction which, in the absence of the prompt renewal of a motion for mistrial, 3 put an end to the matter. Pritchard v. State, 225 Ga. 690, 691(1), 171 S.E.2d 130 (1969). 4. After Sandy Wells testified, the trial court charged the jury as The rule of sequestration states in pertinent par......
-
Davis v. Ben O'Callaghan Co.
...Davis did not move for a mistrial in the court below, he cannot now enumerate as error a failure to grant a mistrial. Pritchard v. State, 225 Ga. 690(2), 171 S.E.2d 130; Mitchell v. Gay, 111 Ga.App. 867, 874(8), 143 S.E.2d Judgment affirmed. PANNELL, P.J., and McMURRAY, J., concur. ...
-
Allen v. State
...reversible error. Young v. State, 226 Ga. 553, 556, 176 S.E.2d 52; Wooten v. State, 224 Ga. 106(3), 160 S.E.2d 403. See Pritchard v. State, 225 Ga. 690(1), 171 S.E.2d 130. 5. There is no merit in appellant's contention that the photographs of the bloody victims introduced into evidence prej......
-
Mize v. State, 32627
...did not renew his motion or ask for further instructions. Accordingly, this enumeration of error is without merit. Pritchard v. State, 225 Ga. 690, 171 S.E.2d 130 (1969). 4. The seventh enumeration of error complains of allowing defendant's expert witness to be cross examined from a text or......