Smith v. State, 30469
| Decision Date | 08 January 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 30469,30469 |
| Citation | 235 Ga. 852,221 S.E.2d 601 |
| Parties | Marvin Dennis SMITH et al. v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Robert C. Montgomery, Jonesboro, for appellants.
William H. Ison, Dist. Atty., Douglas N. Peters, Asst. Dist. Atty., Jonesboro, for appellee.
Appellants were jointly tried and each was convicted of one count of rape and two counts of aggravated sodomy.
1. As the Assistant District Attorney rose to cross-examine appellants Bickers, he alluded to alleged differences in Bickers' testimony from that given by him at an earlier trial, and commended him on his 'story-telling.' The court rebuked counsel in the jury's presence, and instructed them to disregard the remarks. Further questioning showed without objection that there were numerous particulars in which Bickers' testimony was different from that at the first trial. We conclude that the court's action adequately remedied any prejudice to defendants flowing from the remark. The enumeration on the ground that a mistrial should have been granted because a fair trial was thereafter impossible, is without merit. The additional claim, raised here for the first time, that Bickers' character was thus put in evidence, is similarly without merit.
2. Appellants claim that the doctor should not have been allowed to recite certain of prosecutrix' exact words to him (which he wrote down at the time) because this testimony did not qualify under Code Ann. § 38-1707, is without merit. The doctor swore positively from the paper that that was what she told him. The enumeration is that 'no foundation was laid as to the failing of the doctor's memory' to require its refreshment by this writing. There is no need for any such 'foundation.'
3. The third enumeration is that the record fails to show whether the jury were sworn as required by Code Ann. § 59-709. Such a record, without more, would not constitute reversible error. Dalton v. State, 127 Ga.App. 504, 194 S.E.2d 268 (1972). The prosecutor moved to amend the transcript in accordance with the procedure established in Code Ann. § 6-805(f) for use where the contention is made that the transcript is inadequate. The court held a hearing at which 18 witnesses appeared, including all 12 jurors, and at the conclusion thereof found as a fact that the jury had been properly sworn. The supplemental record supports this conclusion, and the enumeration is without merit. See Patterson v. State, 233 Ga. 724, 731, 213 S.E.2d 612 (19...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keller v. State
...536 S.E.2d 153 (2000). 10. (Footnote omitted.) Salahuddin v. State, 277 Ga. 561, 564(3), 592 S.E.2d 410 (2004). 11. Smith v. State, 235 Ga. 852, 853(3), 221 S.E.2d 601 (1976). 12. See Nelson v. State, 255 Ga.App. 315, 319(2), 565 S.E.2d 551 13. See Buggay v. State, 263 Ga.App. 520, 522(2), ......
-
Hill v. State
...that the mere failure of the record to reflect whether the jury was sworn does not constitute reversible error. Smith v. State, 235 Ga. 852, 853(3), 221 S.E.2d 601 (1976); Bynum v. State, 300 Ga.App. 163, 167(3), 684 S.E.2d 330 (2009); Benton v. State, supra. “ ‘A fear ... that the oath may......
-
Grant v. State, A99A0015.
...the provisions of OCGA § 5-6-41(f). Montford v. State, 148 Ga.App. 335(2), 251 S.E.2d 125 (1978). See also Smith v. State, 235 Ga. 852, 853(3), 221 S.E.2d 601 (1976); Copeland v. State, 139 Ga.App. 55, 57(2), 227 S.E.2d 850 (1976). Grant failed in this regard and cannot now claim 2. Grant a......
-
Keller v. State, No. A01A0926
...v. State, 100 Ga. 323, 330, 28 S.E. 159 (1897); see also Grant v. State, 272 Ga. 213, 528 S.E.2d 512 (2000). 9. Smith v. State, 235 Ga. 852, 853(3), 221 S.E.2d 601 (1976). 10. (Punctuation omitted.) Bohin v. State, 156 Ga.App. 206, 208(6), 274 S.E.2d 592 (1980); see Smith, 11. See generally......