Teasley v. State, 71313
| Decision Date | 23 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 71313,71313 |
| Citation | 177 Ga.App. 554,340 S.E.2d 32 |
| Parties | TEASLEY v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
John W. Davis, Jr., for appellant.
David L. Lomenick, Jr., Dist. Atty., Roland Enloe, David J. Dunn, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of burglary pursuant to an indictment alleging that he had entered the dwelling house of the victim "without authority and with intent to commit a theft therein." He appeals.
1. Appellant first enumerates as error the trial court's refusal to give the jury a requested charge. The refused request was to the effect that there must be evidence of an intent to commit theft separate and distinct from the unauthorized entry. Although the trial court did not employ the exact language of appellant's request, the same principles were covered in the charge as given. The jury was instructed on the definition of burglary, including the requirement that entry be made "with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein...." The jury was also instructed that intent was an essential element of the crime which the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and that it must find the crime to have been committed in the manner alleged in the indictment. The requested charge having been given in substance, "it was not error to fail to charge in the exact language requested." Kelly v. State, 241 Ga. 190, 192(4), 243 S.E.2d 857 (1978).
2. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in excluding certain defense testimony and in implying to the jury that such testimony was introduced for the purpose of prejudice. The record shows that the State's objection to testimony concerning appellant's financial woes, marital difficulties, and sick child was sustained with an instruction to the jury that emotionalism and sympathy had no place in such a trial. This instruction was repeated in the final charge.
Styles v. State, 129 Ga. 425, 429, 59 S.E. 249 (1907). Appellant's personal difficulties were irrelevant to the issues being tried, and only tended to inject into the trial an improper element of emotionalism. Thus, it was not error to exclude the evidence and instruct the jury as the trial court did. OCGA § 24-2-1; Horne v. State, 125 Ga.App. 40, 186 S.E.2d 542 (1971).
3. Appellant enumerates as error the failure of the trial court to grant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farley v. State
...of the trial of the case, which tends to destroy the impartiality of the juror, should be discountenanced." ' Teasley v. State, 177 Ga.App. 554, 555(2), 340 S.E.2d 32 (1986). It appearing that the defense counsel's question injected into the trial an improper element of racial bias, the tri......
-
Mitchell v. State
...of the trial of the case, which tends to destroy the impartiality of the juror, should be discountenanced.' " Teasley v. State, 177 Ga.App. 554, 555(2), 340 S.E.2d 32 (1986). It appearing that defense counsel's question injected into the trial an improper element of racial bias, the trial c......
-
Griffin v. State
...as to warrant a mistrial is one which must be resolved by the exercise of discretion by the trial court." [Cit.] Teasley v. State, 177 Ga.App. 554, 555-556(3), 340 S.E.2d 32. The record reveals that the sheriff's investigator was asked to testify as to what the child victim had told her, an......
- Lane v. State