Smith v. State, 47190
| Citation | 126 Ga.App. 547,191 S.E.2d 304 |
| Decision Date | 22 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 47190,47190,1 |
| Parties | Robert R. SMITH v. The STATE |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
James A. Elkins, Jr., Columbus, for appellant.
William J. Smith, Columbus, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The defendant was indicted, tried and convicted of a criminal attempt to burglarize a residential apartment. He was sentenced to serve nine years. The appeal is from the judgment and sentence. Held:
1. During the cross examination of a police officer, witness for the State, he was questioned with reference to whether or not the accused had many friends and acquaintances who are detectives, regular patrolmen, and who know him on sight and know him by name, to which the witness answered, 'I don't know who his friends are.' Thereafter the following question was asked: (Emphasis supplied.) Defendant immediately moved for a mistrial stating the witness had given an unresponsive answer to the question, and that a mistrial is the only way this error can be corrected. The form and substance of a number of enumerations of error dealing with the motion for mistrial is that the defendant's character was placed in issue by the testimony concerning prior arrests. Unfortunately, this is absolutely correct. The answer was not responsive to the question, was highly inflammatory and was probably intentionally injected for the purpose of prejudicing the case against the defendant. However, counsel failed to raise the proper objection, merely stating that it was 'unresponsive' without stating how and why it was hurtful and harmful to the defendant. For this reason the enumerations in regard thereto are not meritorious. See Cherry v. State, 220 Ga. 695(4), and citations at page 697, 141 S.E.2d 412.
2. Generally, granting or refusing a continuance is a matter within the discretion of the trial court, and unless abused, such discretion will not be controlled. Revel v. State, 26 Ga. 275(2); Long v. State, 38 Ga. 491(4, 5); Simmons v. State, 116 Ga. 583, 42 S.E. 779; Hardy v. State, 117 Ga. 40(1), 43 S.E. 434; Turner v. State, 70 Ga. 765; Griffin v. State, 208 Ga. 746, 69 S.E.2d 192; Crow v. State, 86 Ga.App. 11(1), 70 S.E.2d 601. Approximately three days before the trial, the public defender was appointed to represent the defendant, but the court was informed that the counsel making the motion for continuance did represent the defendant 'and for that reason Mr. Byars (the public defender) ceased to represent him . . . because he was under the impression that your firm . . . represented...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bolick v. State, 47563
...v. State, 115 Ga.App. 387, 388, 154 S.E.2d 781, 784, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 928, 88 S.Ct. 287, 19 L.Ed.2d 279. See also Smith v. State, 126 Ga.App. 547, 191 S.E.2d 304 and citations 2. The complaint of court-appointed counsel being inadequate and ineffective is contradicted completely by th......
-
Pope v. State
...the trial court, and absent a clear showing of abuse, this court will not reverse for refusing to grant a continuance. Smith v. State, 126 Ga.App. 547, 191 S.E.2d 304; Adams v. State, 130 Ga.App. 323(1), 203 S.E.2d 318. 'Mere shortness of time . . . does not ipso facto show a denial of the ......
-
Watts v. State, 53716
...a continuance. Granting or denying a continuance is reversible error only where the court has abused its discretion. Smith v. State, 126 Ga.App. 547(2), 191 S.E.2d 304. When a criminal defendant moves for a continuance based on a witness' absence, the trial court's discretion is not abused ......
-
Tootle v. State, 50919
...attorney, he becomes responsible for the lack of preparation, if any, in the handling of his case when it is tried. Smith v. State, 126 Ga.App. 547, 548(2), 191 S.E.2d 304; McDonald v. State, 132 Ga.App. 506(1), 208 S.E.2d The court did not err in refusing a continuance. Judgment affirmed. ......