Rayner v. State, A89A0454
| Decision Date | 13 March 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. A89A0454,A89A0454 |
| Citation | 380 S.E.2d 342,190 Ga.App. 746 |
| Parties | RAYNER v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
T. Michael Martin, Jonesboro, for appellant.
Johnnie L. Caldwell, Jr., Dist. Atty., J. David Fowler, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
The appellant was convicted of child molestation, aggravated child molestation, and aggravated sodomy. The victim in each case was his 13-year-old daughter. His sole enumeration of error on appeal concerns the admission of certain testimony offered by his adult daughter concerning acts of molestation which he had committed against her when she was a child. The appellant does not contend that this testimony was inadmissible but maintains that it was incumbent upon the trial court to instruct the jury, without request, regarding the limited purposes for which such similar transaction evidence could be considered. Held:
It is axiomatic that where evidence has been admitted for a limited purpose "it is not error for the court to fail to instruct the jury to limit its consideration to the one purpose for which it is admissible, in the absence of a request to so instruct the jury." Harrell v. State, 241 Ga. 181, 186(2), 243 S.E.2d 890 (1978). See also Pyburn v. State, 175 Ga.App. 158(2), 332 S.E.2d 899 (1985). As no request for such instructions was made in this case, it follows that no error has been established.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Belt v. State
...204 Ga. 47, 56(3), 48 S.E.2d 864. And the author of the majority opinion concurred in applying the maxim in question in Rayner v. State, 190 Ga.App. 746, 380 S.E.2d 342, also a case involving "similar transaction Since the Supreme Court holding in Jackson v. State, 204 Ga. 47, 56(3), 48 S.E......
-
Sloan v. State, A94A1846
...to the one purpose for which it is admissible, in the absence of a request to so instruct the jury." (Cits.)' Rayner v. State, 190 Ga.App. 746 (380 SE2d 342) (1989)." (Emphasis in original.) Thomas v. State, 199 Ga.App. 49, 50(4), 404 S.E.2d 315. In the case sub judice, we cannot say that t......
-
Thomas v. State
...to the one purpose for which it is admissible, in the absence of a request to so instruct the jury.' [Cits.]" Rayner v. State, 190 Ga.App. 746, 380 S.E.2d 342 (1989). We do not find that the failure to give this charge, in the absence of a request, was "clearly harmful and erroneous as a ma......