Terry v. State, 62399
| Decision Date | 19 November 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 62399,62399 |
| Citation | 160 Ga.App. 433,287 S.E.2d 360 |
| Parties | TERRY v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
J. Dixon Belk, Manchester, for appellant.
Arthur E. Mallory, III, Dist. Atty., Harger W. Hoyt, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Willis James Terry was indicted under two separate indictments for the sale of marijuana and sales of marijuana and methaqualone. Trial was set under both indictments on the same day. A jury was selected at 9 a. m. and Terry was acquitted of the first indicted offense. Before a jury was selected to try the second indictment, defense counsel made a motion for continuance on the ground that members of the jury venire had seen Terry on trial for the first offense that morning. A motion in limine was also made to prohibit mention of the prior trial in the second trial. The trial court granted the motion in limine but, after questioning each prospective juror as to any prejudice or reason he could not be fair and impartial, denied a continuance and the second trial proceeded. Terry was found guilty on both counts of the second indictment and brings this appeal, enumerating as error the denial of his motion for continuance and admission in evidence of testimony concerning a "previous deal."
1. The trial court is empowered to allow continuances in criminal cases "as often as the principles of justice may require." Code Ann. § 27-2002. See Sides v. State, 213 Ga. 482(1), 99 S.E.2d 884 (1957); Thrash v. State, 158 Ga.App. 94, 283 S.E.2d 611 (1981). However, " '[t]he grant of motions for continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and this court will not interfere unless it is clearly shown that he abused his discretion.' " Gaines v. State, 142 Ga.App. 181, 182, 235 S.E.2d 640 (1977). Since trial of the first indictment resulted in Terry's acquittal and because voir dire questioning indicated no prejudice toward him by the jury selected from the same panel, it cannot be said that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the motion for continuance. Gaines v. State, supra.
Under the law an accused in a felony case is entitled as a matter of right to a panel of 42 impartial jurors. Code Ann. § 59-801. " " Rucker v. State, 135 Ga.App. 468, 471, 218 S.E.2d 146 (1975). The record does not reflect whether Terry exhausted all his peremptory strikes and, indeed, he does not contend that he did so. Therefore, the trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hufstetler v. State, 67571
...appellant. Such a motion, like those in Division 1, addresses itself to the sound discretion of the trial court. Terry v. State, 160 Ga.App. 433(1), 287 S.E.2d 360 (1981). Our review of the record as it relates to the grounds asserted here by appellant discloses no abuse of that discretion.......
-
Tubman v. State, 75416
...judge, and this court will not interfere unless it is shown clearly that the trial judge abused his discretion. Terry v. State, 160 Ga.App. 433 (1), 287 S.E.2d 360 (1981). While this court has held that statements by jurors on voir dire examination which are clearly prejudicial require empa......
-
Hill v. State, 67450
...of that discretion, this court will not interfere. Gaines v. State, 142 Ga.App. 181, 182, 235 S.E.2d 640 (1977); Terry v. State, 160 Ga.App. 433(1), 287 S.E.2d 360 (1981). It is clear that counsel for appellant had been representing him for seven months at the time of trial, and with due di......
-
Bonner v. State
...for continuance since the trial court qualified the jury and determined that it was not prejudiced against defendant. Terry v. State, 160 Ga.App. 433, 287 S.E.2d 360; Rutledge v. State, 152 Ga.App. 849, 264 S.E.2d 248. Defendant was not deprived of his right to be tried by an impartial jury......