Scott v. Chapman, A91A2261
| Decision Date | 11 February 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. A91A2261,A91A2261 |
| Citation | 416 S.E.2d 111,203 Ga.App. 58 |
| Parties | SCOTT v. CHAPMAN, et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Long & Mullman, Nick Long, Jr., Roy S. Mullman, Atlanta, for appellant.
Downey, Cleveland, Parker & Williams, Y. Kevin Williams, Rodney S. Shockley, Marietta, for appellees.
Sandra Scott brought suit against William Chapman to recover damages for injuries she incurred as a result of a collision between the car in which she was a passenger and a car driven by Chapman. Since Chapman was uninsured, State Farm Insurance Company, Scott's uninsured motorist insurance carrier, was served pursuant to OCGA § 33-7-11(d). Judgment was entered on a jury verdict in favor of Scott. Finding the verdict inadequate, Scott filed this appeal.
1. Appellant contends the trial court erred by denying her motion for a mistrial. After the direct examination of appellant during her case in chief but before cross-examination, appellant moved in limine for an order prohibiting appellees from cross-examining her regarding a shoplifting charge. After considerable colloquy among both counsel and the court, the trial court ruled that appellees could attempt impeachment of appellant using the shoplifting charge only by introducing into evidence a certified copy of her shoplifting conviction and could not cross-examine appellant regarding the charge. Thereafter, in his cross-examination of appellant, appellees' counsel lifted a document, showed it to appellant, and asked: "Handing you a certified copy of a shoplifting conviction, is that for April 27th?" Appellant answered, "[y]es, sir." No objection was made by appellant, and appellees' counsel immediately moved on to other topics in his cross-examination. At the close of appellees' evidence, defense counsel indicated he would not tender a certified copy of the "conviction" into evidence. After appellant objected vigorously and the objection was overruled, appellant moved for a mistrial. The trial court denied that motion on the basis that appellant had not objected to the question and answer.
On appeal, appellant argues that she did not object to the question and answer because she anticipated that the certified copy of the conviction would be introduced into evidence in accordance with the previous ruling by the trial court, but that given appellees' subsequent refusal to enter the document into evidence, the question and answer had a highly prejudicial effect on the jury. 1
Durrett v. State, 135 Ga.App. 749, 752(3), 219 S.E.2d 9 (1975). This rule is consonant with the principle prohibiting Rewis v. State, 109 Ga.App. 83, 86, 134 S.E.2d 875 (1964).
It is clear from the record that appellees' counsel violated the trial court's order on appellant's motion in limine. Although no objection was made to the question and answer, when a motion in limine has been granted no further objection is required to preserve the issue for appellate review. Seay v. Urban Med. Hosp., 172 Ga.App. 344, 346(3), 323 S.E.2d 190 (1984). We cannot say that this deliberate violation of the trial court's order did not influence the jury's verdict. See id. Accordingly, appellant is entitled to a new trial.
2. We address appellant's enumerations of error regarding the jury instructions, which may recur upon retrial.
(a) The trial court charged the jury that "if you find that [appellant's]...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Harvey
...584, 587 (2), 757 S.E.2d 199 (2014) ; Herring v. State , 288 Ga. App. 169, 173 (2) (a), 653 S.E.2d 494 (2007) ; Scott v. Chapman , 203 Ga. App. 58, 59 (1), 416 S.E.2d 111 (1992) ; and Seay v. Urban Med. Hosp., Inc. , 172 Ga. App. 344, 346 (3), 323 S.E.2d 190 (1984).6 See Gates v. State , 29......
-
General Motors Corp. v. Moseley
...in limine is violated, further objection at trial is unnecessary to preserve the matter for appellate review. Scott v. Chapman, 203 Ga.App. 58, 59, 416 S.E.2d 111 (1992). "The purpose in filing a motion in limine to suppress evidence or to instruct opposing counsel not to offer it is to pre......
-
Smith v. Csx Transp. Inc.
...by the motion in limine, the movant need not object in order to preserve the issue for appellate review.); Scott v. Chapman, 203 Ga.App. 58, 59(1), 416 S.E.2d 111 (1992) (accord). 9. In full, Smith requested the following charge: Plaintiff contends the Defendant Railroad did not comply with......
-
Jordan v. Johnson
...a motion in limine has been granted to preserve the issue for appellate review." The holding in Seay was followed in Scott v. Chapman, 203 Ga.App. 58, 416 S.E.2d 111. In Scott, supra at 59(1), 416 S.E.2d 111, it was held: "It is clear from the record that appellees' counsel violated the tri......
-
Product Liability - Franklin P. Brannen, Jr., Richard L. Sizemore, and Jacob E. Daly
...F. Supp. 2d at 1270. 187. Id. at 1271. 188. Id. 189. Id. 190. Id. at 1272. 191. Id. 192. Id. 193. Id. 194. See, e.g., Scott v. Chapman, 203 Ga. App. 58, 59, 416 S.E.2d 111, 112 (1992); Payne v. Joyner, 197 Ga. App. 527, 528, 399 S.E.2d 83, 84 (1990); Katz v. White, 190 Ga. App. 458, 458, 37......