Betner v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Betner v. State

199 S.E.2d 279, 129 Ga. App. 200, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 938

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 17, 1973

Docket48187

StatusPublished

This text of 199 S.E.2d 279 (Betner 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

Betner v. State, 199 S.E.2d 279, 129 Ga. App. 200, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 938 (Ga. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Stolz, Judge.

In this appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence for violation of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, the issue raised as to the sole error contended to have been made upon the trial — the trial judge’s allowing a co-defendant, who was under indictment at the time for an offense arising out of the same transaction and who was to be subsequently and separately tried, to make a preliminary refusal to testify at all for the defense on the ground of self-incrimination — was rendered moot by the defendant’s counsel’s acceding to the judge’s ruling by stating in open court, "If he don’t [sic] want to testify, I don’t really want him to testify.”

For the proper procedure in this regard when no waiver is involved, see Chastain v. State, 113 Ga. App. 601 (3) (149 SE2d 195) and cit.

Judgment affirmed.

Eberhardt, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.

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

Stolz, Judge.

In this appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence for violation of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, the issue raised as to the sole error contended to have been made upon the trial — the trial judge’s allowing a co-defendant, who was under indictment at the time for an offense arising out of the same transaction and who was to be subsequently and separately tried, to make a preliminary refusal to testify at all for the defense on the ground of self-incrimination — was rendered moot by the defendant’s counsel’s acceding to the judge’s ruling by stating in open court, "If he don’t [sic] want to testify, I don’t really want him to testify.”

For the proper procedure in this regard when no waiver is involved, see Chastain v. State, 113 Ga. App. 601 (3) (149 SE2d 195) and cit.

Judgment affirmed.

Eberhardt, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 S.E.2d 279, 129 Ga. App. 200, 1973 Ga. App. LEXIS 938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/betner-v-state-gactapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack