Rutledge v. State
| Decision Date | 20 December 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 58834,58834 |
| Citation | 152 Ga.App. 849,264 S.E.2d 248 |
| Parties | RUTLEDGE v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Andrew S. Murphy, Alton T. Milam, Austell, for appellant.
William F. Lee, Jr., Dist. Atty., Michael G. Kam, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Appellant was convicted for aggravated assault in Carroll County. The offense arose out of an incident which also formed the basis for his conviction in a separate trial for the offenses of violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act and aggravated assault. In this appeal, Rutledge enumerates three alleged errors by the trial court, two of which raise issues identical to those we disposed of contrary to his contentions in Divisions 2 and 5 of this court's opinion in Rutledge v. State, 152 Ga.App. 755, 264 S.E.2d 244, and which are dispositive of these two enumerations in this case. In his remaining enumeration, appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for continuance which he made on the basis that the jurors in the second trial had commingled with jurors who had the previous day convicted appellant for the other offenses, thereby prejudicing appellant's cause. We find no merit in this allegation. The objection made by the appellant addressed the qualification of each juror, and is fully met by the questions and answers on voir dire. Humphries v. State, 100 Ga. 260, 261-62, 28 S.E. 25; Edge v. State, 8 Ga.App. 125, 68 S.E. 623; see also Bradberry v. State, 170 Ga. 870, 154 S.E. 351. The jurors in this case were either qualified on voir dire as being without prejudice against the appellant or were not questioned by the appellant. The trial judge was as a matter of fact fully satisfied that there was no actual prejudice against the appellant among the jurors, for any reason, and so are we.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Harper
...trial, entitle the defendant to a presumption of prejudice. State v. Hohman, 138 Vt. 502, 420 A.2d 852 (Vt.1980); Rutledge v. State, 264 S.E.2d 248, 152 Ga.App. 849 (1979). But see Head v. State, 377 So.2d 160 (Ala.1979) (six veniremen served on jury that convicted co-defendant and five of ......
-
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Pinyan, 59916
...addressed the qualification of each juror, and is fully met by the questions and answers on voir dire. (Cits.)" Rutledge v. State, 152 Ga.App. 849, 264 S.E.2d 248 (1979). We, therefore, find no merit in Firestone's first two enumerations of 2. A passenger in the truck driven by Pinyan at th......
-
Henderson v. Henderson
... ... Wallace v. Virginia Surety Co., 80 Ga.App. 50, 52, 55 S.E.2d 259; State Farm Fire, etc., Co. v. Rowland, 111 Ga.App. 743, 744, 143 S.E.2d 193. Dictionaries supply the plain, ordinary and popular sense. Southern Guaranty ... ...
-
Bonner v. State
...the jury and determined that it was not prejudiced against defendant. Terry v. State, 160 Ga.App. 433, 287 S.E.2d 360; Rutledge v. State, 152 Ga.App. 849, 264 S.E.2d 248. Defendant was not deprived of his right to be tried by an impartial jury simply because 30 jurors on the panel were put ......