Wright v. State
| Citation | 159 S.E.2d 76,223 Ga. 849 |
| Decision Date | 04 January 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 24393,24393 |
| Parties | Will WRIGHT v. The STATE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
Stanley H. Nylen, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Sol. Gen., J. Walter LeCraw, J. Melvin England, Asst. Sol., Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Marion O. Gordon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Joel C. Williams, Jr., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Will Wright was convicted of murder with a recommendation for mercy and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals from that judgment and enumerates as error the fact that the trial judge expressed an opinion when he was ruling on objections to certain deductions being made by the solicitor general in his closing argument to the jury. The trial judge in overruling the objections related a portion of the testimony correctly and stated 'this is a logical deduction' and further stated in the presence of the jury that the court was not addressing itself to the weight that should be given to the testimony but simply that the solicitor general was drawing reasonable inferences therefrom. Held: It was not error for the trial judge to refer to the testimony in deciding the objections raised in this case and it was clear that the trial judge was not expressing an opinion but ruling on the objections made. Williams & Co. v. Hart, 65 Ga. 201(5); Patterson v. State, 68 Ga. 292(2); Barnes v. State, 89 Ga. 316, 15 S.E. 313; Brown v. State, 119 Ga. 572(1), 46 S.E. 833; Glover v. State, 129 Ga. 717, 720(3), 59 S.E. 816; Fair v. State, 171 Ga. 112, 113(3), 155 S.E. 329; Whisman v. State, 221 Ga. 460, 462(3), 145 S.E.2d 499. There is no merit in the enumeration of errors.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stevens v. State, 36943
... ... "It is not error for the trial judge to refer to the testimony in deciding the objection raised in this case and it was clear that the trial judge was not expressing an opinion, but ruling on the objections made. (Cites)" Wright v. State, 223 Ga. 849, 159 S.E.2d 76 (1968). See, Tucker v. State, supra. Nor is it error for the trial judge to propound questions to any witness for the purpose of fully developing the truth of the case. This court has examined each instance cited by appellant where the trial court examined a ... ...
-
High v. State
... ... § 81-1104. We do not agree. It is clear from the record that the trial judge was not expressing an opinion but ruling upon the motion which had been made by the appellant. Wright v. State, 223 Ga. 849, 159 S.E.2d 76 (1968). See Tucker v. State, 245 Ga. 68, 263 S.E.2d 109 (1980); Whisman v. State, 221 Ga. 460, 145 S.E.2d 499 (1965) ... 6. It is clear from the voir dire examination that the jurors excused for being conscientiously opposed to the death ... ...
-
Tucker v. State
... ... Following these instructions, the court asked, "Is there anything else?" Defense counsel replied, "No, sir." ... No error is shown by this enumeration of error. Wright v. State, 223 Ga. 849, 159 S.E.2d 76 (1968); Green v. State, 112 Ga.App. 329(1), 145 S.E.2d 80 (1965) and Bradley v. State, 137 Ga.App. 670(8), 224 S.E.2d 778 (1976) ... 5. The eighth enumeration of error contends that the trial court erred in charging: "Malice may be implied where ... ...
-
Miller v. State
... ... State, 72 Ga.App. 157(2), 33 S.E.2d 454. See Hatcher v. State, 8 Ga.App. 673, 70 S.E. 43; Moon v. State, 120 Ga.App. 141, 146, 169 S.E.2d 632; Wright v. State, 223 Ga. 849, 159 S.E.2d 76; Pritchard v. State, 225 Ga. 690(1), (2), 171 S.E.2d 130 ... Moreover, the defendant neither moved for a mistrial or offered [122 Ga.App. 555] objection to the alleged improper comment. Prejudicial questions or statements purportedly in ... ...