State v. Griffin
| Decision Date | 05 January 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 32631,32631 |
| Citation | 240 Ga. 470,241 S.E.2d 230 |
| Parties | The STATE v. Alvin GRIFFIN. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
E. Mullins Whisnant, Dist. Atty., Lovick P. Anthony, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Columbus, for appellant.
Ben B. Philips, Grogan, Jones & Layfield, Columbus, for appellee.
We review the grant of certiorari to the State challenging division 3 of the Court of Appeals opinion in Griffin v. State, 142 Ga.App. 362, 235 S.E.2d 724. The facts in contest are fully set out in that opinion and will not be repeated here. In a five-to-four opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed Griffin's conviction holding certain comments and questions propounded to Griffin by the trial judge during examination and cross- examination were reversible error. Concluding the trial judge appeared to be expressing his opinion as to the credibility of the witness and also as to what had been proved, the Court of Appeals states that a violation of Code Ann. § 81-1104 (Ga.L.1850, Cobb 462) is a mandatory cause for a new trial. The Court of Appeals opinion appears to hold that the purported statements require reversal regardless of whether there was a contemporaneous objection entered. The question of whether Code Ann. § 81-1104 has been violated is not reached unless an objection or motion for mistrial is made. In applying Code § 81-1104 this court stated in Ezzard v. State, 229 Ga. 465(2), 192 S.E.2d 374 (1972) that, ". . . (T)he failure of the appellant to object to the questions or to move for a mistrial at the trial estopped him from raising an objection on appeal." Accord, Coffee v. State, 230 Ga. 123, 124(4), 195 S.E.2d 897 (1973).
Division 3 and the judgment of the Court of Appeals opinion are vacated. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration consistent with this opinion.
All the Justices concur, except BOWLES, J., who concurs in the judgment only, and HALL and HILL, JJ., who dissent.
MARSHALL, J., disqualified.
This case is before this court on certiorari to the Court of Appeals. On certiorari we are supposed to take only cases of gravity and importance. I fail to find any gravity or importance in this case and I therefore dissent.
I am authorized to state that Justice HALL joins in this dissent.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. Six Flags Over Georgia
... ... Moreover, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider inadequately enumerated grounds. OCGA § 5-6-40; Meeks v. State, 178 Ga.App. 9, 14(4), 341 S.E.2d 880 (1986) ... Consequently, we will not address the validity of this basis for liability but note only that 537 ... 137, 74 S.E. 1000 (1912). Moreover, we do not believe the court's statement commented on the credibility of the witness. Compare Griffin v. State, 142 Ga.App. 362, 363-364, 235 S.E.2d 724 (1977), vacated on other grounds, 240 Ga. 470, 241 S.E.2d 230 (1978); Speagle v. Nationwide &c ... ...
-
Cook v. State
... ... See Mauro, supra at 529-530 , 107 S.Ct. 1931 ; Gaddy, supra ... The evidence also shows that Cook's December 5 statement to his father was voluntary under OCGA § 24-3-50. Griffin v. State, 230 Ga.App. 318, 320, 496 S.E.2d 480 (1998) (when confession is made to a witness who is not a state agent, it must still be voluntary under OCGA § 24-3-50) ... 3. On several occasions during trial, the trial court prevented Cook from cross-examining state witnesses ... ...
-
Rouse v. State
...57 and n. 3, 545 S.E.2d 179 (2001) (citing numerous cases applying waiver to OCGA § 17–8–57 claims and noting that in State v. Griffin, 240 Ga. 470, 470, 241 S.E.2d 230 (1978), this Court 765 S.E.2d 894had granted certiorari to reiterate that “[t]he question of whether [what is now OCGA § 1......
-
Ford v. State
... ... See OCGA ... Page 573 ... § 17-8-[255 Ga. 84] 57. 2 We need not determine whether this code section actually was violated, inasmuch as Ford neither objected nor moved for a mistrial. State v. Griffin, 240 Ga. 470, 241 S.E.2d 230 (1978). We note, however, that Ford does not, even now, contest the truth of the court's comment, see Abbott v. State, 91 Ga.App. 380(3), 85 S.E.2d 615 (1955), or contend otherwise than that regardless of the court's comment, the state had a constitutional duty to ... ...