Williams v. State, 49238
| Decision Date | 18 June 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 49238,No. 3,49238,3 |
| Citation | 207 S.E.2d 651,132 Ga.App. 152 |
| Parties | George WILLIAMS v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
O. L. Collins, Augusta, for appellant.
Richard E. Allen, Dist. Atty., Augusta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Appellant was convicted of two counts of distributing and selling heroin in Augusta, Georgia. Tried and convicted as charged, he was sentenced to eight years on each count, with the sentences to run consecutively. He now appeals. Held:
1. Appellant initially complains that the trial court erred in denying his motion for continuance predicated on the absence of a witness. The failure of the record to show that the movant satisfied all of the eight statutory requisites for a continuance requires affirmance of the trial judge's exercise of discretion. Beasley v. State, 115 Ga.App. 827, 156 S.E.2d 128. The enumeration is without merit.
2. The second enumeration of error is as to instructions of judge to jury when they were allowed to disperse for the night and at the noon recess. The record shows that after the jury was empaneled and sworn in, court was recessed for the day, and the 'jury was dismissed with admonition by the court not to discuss the case with anyone and not to permit anyone to discuss it with them, and if so, to report to the court.' After they were so admonished and dismissed, another jury in another case came in to deliver its verdict and the foreman was permitted to make a speech in which he asked all law enforcement personnel to help stop drug traffic. The defense lawyer (appellant here) made the following motion: 'At this time the jury has now been selected, and in view of those remarks and in view of the fact that Mr. Jay Mann of the television station was writing down each word, and I do not know whether any member of my jury is in here, if these words get to my jury, my client could not have a fair and impartial trial and I move at this time for a mistrial.' (Emphasis supplied.)
Upon reconvening the next morning, they were asked if they had discussed the case with anyone or had it discussed with them. Also, the following question:
A motion for continuance was made after the morning admonition. The appellant's lawyer stating that he had information that the television station news had made some comments about the previous case but did not know if any of his jurors heard the comments. He stated that the judge had not asked them specifically about the foreman's speech or television comments but made no motion that he do so.
Upon recessing and dispersing for lunch, the jury was instructed: 'I remind you of my previous admonition: Don't discuss this case with anyone, don't permit anyone to discuss...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ingram v. State
...interrogation and remain silent or request the presence of an attorney is not a requirement under the Miranda case. Williams v. State, 132 Ga.App. 152(4), 207 S.E.2d 651. The statement made by Ingram was by a preponderance of the evidence, otherwise voluntarily made, Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S......
-
Langston v. State
...admonition is not required. Mason v. State, supra; Jackson v. State, 154 Ga.App. 367(3), 268 S.E.2d 418 (1980); Williams v. State, 132 Ga.App. 152(2), 207 S.E.2d 651 (1974). Upon learning that there had been media accounts of the trial, the trial court acted promptly to ascertain whether an......
-
Mason v. State
...Favors v. State, 229 Ga. 398(2), 192 S.E.2d 161 (1972); Coffee v. State, 230 Ga. 123(6), 195 S.E.2d 897 (1973); Williams v. State, 132 Ga.App. 152(2), 207 S.E.2d 651 (1974). Judgment All the Justices concur. ...
- Carter v. Harrell