Purcell v. Hill
| Decision Date | 04 February 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 22797,22797 |
| Citation | 141 S.E.2d 152,220 Ga. 663 |
| Parties | Marvin PURCELL v. Maggie L. HILL. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Heard & Leverett, Elberton, C. Patrick Milford, Carnesville, for plaintiff in error.
Davis & Davidson, Jefferson, Marshall L. Allison, Lavonia, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The Court of Appeals, 141 S.E.2d 153, certified to this court for answer the following question:
'Where counsel for the plaintiff, in making his argument to the jury, makes improper and prejudicial statements, and where counsel for the defendant, upon such argument being made, objects thereto and moves the court to reprimand offending counsel for making such improper argument, and where the court instead of reprimanding counsel merely instructs the jury: 'Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, try this case according to the evidence and I rule that out, just don't any attention to that,' is it necessary for counsel for the defendant to renew his motion that the court reprimand counsel for the plaintiff or that he invoke any further ruling by the court in order for the defendant to have a review in the appellate court of the action of the trial court inrefusing to reprimand counsel for the plaintiff?' Held:
The method employed by the trial judge for the purpose of reprimanding plaintiff's attorney for improper and prejudicial statements made in his argument to the jury was to instruct the jury to try the case according to the evidence and to say to the jury, 'I rule that out, just don't pay any attention to that.' This was action which the trial judge took as his compliance with the motion to reprimand. 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. The question propounded is therefore answered in the affirmative. See Code § 81-1009; Johnson v. State, 150 Ga. 67(1), 102 S.E. 439; Nelson v. State, 187 Ga. 576(6), 1 S.E.2d 641; Wells v. State, 194 Ga. 70(5), 20 S.E.2d 580; Boyers v. State, 198 Ga. 838, 844(4), 33 S.E.2d 251; Ehrlich v. Mills, 203 Ga. 600(4), 48 S.E.2d 107; and Kendrick v. Kendrick, 218 Ga. 460, 462(4), 128 S.E.2d 496.
Certified question answered.
All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Finch v. State
...102 S.E. 439; Ehrlich v. Mills, 203 Ga. 600(4), 48 S.E.2d 107; Kendrick v. Kendrick, 218 Ga. 460(4), 128 S.E.2d 496; Purcell v. Hill, 220 Ga. 663, 664, 141 S.E.2d 152. But did the trial judge here instruct the jury not to be influenced by his remarks of the morning? Those remarks 1. Crimina......
-
Bentley v. State, 48573
...opinion states: 'We are of the opinion that this statement by the judge to the jury met the requirements stated in Purcell v. Hill, 220 Ga. 663, 664, 141 S.E.2d 152.' I do not find in the record that any corrective action whatever was taken by the trial judge. The district attorney, without......
-
Corvair Furniture Mfg. Co. v. Bull
...here, that the jury was instructed to disregard the matter complained about. Wells v. State, 194 Ga. 70(5), 20 S.E.2d 580; Purcell v. Hill, 220 Ga. 663, 141 S.E.2d 152; Walker v. Smith, 87 Ga.App. 517(1, 2), 74 S.E.2d 374; Harrison v. State, 120 Ga.App. 812(5), 172 S.E.2d 328; Yellow Cab Co......
-
Minnix v. State, 63192
...instructed the jury to disregard certain comments of the solicitor. Thus, he cannot complain on appeal. See generally Purcell v. Hill, 220 Ga. 663, 141 S.E.2d 152 (1965); Delaney v. State, 154 Ga.App. 772 (1), 270 S.E.2d 48 (1980). As to the third motion, made during the solicitor's closing......