Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Barreto v. State

Barreto v. State

179 S.E.2d 650, 123 Ga. App. 117, 1970 Ga. App. LEXIS 745
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedDecember 1, 1970
Docket45693
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 179 S.E.2d 650 (Barreto v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Barreto v. State, 179 S.E.2d 650, 123 Ga. App. 117, 1970 Ga. App. LEXIS 745 (Ga. Ct. App. 1970).

Opinions

Pannell, Judge.

A witness for the defendant charged with burglary while being cross examined by the prosecuting attorney testified that he was a good friend of the defendant and after so testifying was asked the following question: "Did you once take a warrant out charging him with the offense of . . . "at which point (Tr. p. 105), before the nature of the offense was given, an objection was made on the grounds that it had no bearing on the case. The court sustained the objection. At the conclusion of this witness’s testimony and that of another [118]*118witness, and after the defendant had made his statement and after the defense rested and while the prosecution was considering the question of whether they would put up any evidence in rebuttal, counsel for the defendant (Tr. p. 123) made a motion to declare a mistrial because of the previous question objected to on the grounds that it put the defendant’s character in evidence when the defendant had not done so. The motion was overruled without any instructions to the jury and upon his conviction the defendant appealed, enumerating as error the overruling of his motion for new trial. Held:

Submitted October 5, 1970 Decided December 1, 1970 Rehearing denied December 16, 1970 — Cert, applied for. Andrew A. Smith, for appellant. Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Stephen A. Land, Tony H. Hight, for appellee.

Pretermitting the question of whether the asking of the question was a proper one for testing the credibility of the witness (see Kimbrough v. State, 9 Ga. App. 301 (70 SE 1127)), the motion for mistrial was not timely and will be considered as having been waived because of delay in making the motion. See in this connection Hospital Authority of the City of St. Marys v. Eason, 113 Ga. App. 401, 412 (148 SE2d 499), reversed on other grounds in 222 Ga. 536 (150 SE2d 812); Cato v. State, 183 Ga. 277 (1) (188 SE 337); Pulliam v. State, 196 Ga. 782 (6, 7) (28 SE2d 139).

Judgment affirmed.

Eberhardt, J., concurs. Jordan, P. J., concurs specially.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Graham v. State
333 S.E.2d 664 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1985)
Yeargin v. State
298 S.E.2d 606 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)
Young v. State
254 S.E.2d 749 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1979)
Bryant v. State
245 S.E.2d 333 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1978)
Favors v. State
244 S.E.2d 902 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1978)
Philmore v. State
236 S.E.2d 180 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1977)
Barreto v. State
179 S.E.2d 650 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
179 S.E.2d 650, 123 Ga. App. 117, 1970 Ga. App. LEXIS 745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barreto-v-state-gactapp-1970.