Cofer v. Turman

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cofer v. Turman

258 S.E.2d 922, 151 Ga. App. 72, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2429

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided September 4, 1979·No. 57615·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Smith, Judge.

Appellant Cofer complains of the trial court’s exclusion of certain documentary evidence. However, the proffered evidence has not been made part of the record, and we therefore have nothing to review. "A basic rule of appellate procedure is that no appellate court can rule on [73] the exclusion of evidence unless it is aware of what was excluded.” 11 EGL 304, Evidence, § 10 (Civil) (1979 Rev.); Wood v. Hamilton, 109 Ga. App. 608 (5) (137 SE2d 61) (1964).

Argued April 4, 1979 Decided September 4, 1979. Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Russell N. Sewell, Jr., Daryl A. Robinson, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellant. William R. Parker, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

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

Smith, Judge.

Appellant Cofer complains of the trial court’s exclusion of certain documentary evidence. However, the proffered evidence has not been made part of the record, and we therefore have nothing to review. "A basic rule of appellate procedure is that no appellate court can rule on [73] the exclusion of evidence unless it is aware of what was excluded.” 11 EGL 304, Evidence, § 10 (Civil) (1979 Rev.); Wood v. Hamilton, 109 Ga. App. 608 (5) (137 SE2d 61) (1964).

Argued April 4, 1979 Decided September 4, 1979. Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Russell N. Sewell, Jr., Daryl A. Robinson, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellant. William R. Parker, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

Cofer v. Turman, 258 S.E.2d 922, 151 Ga. App. 72, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2429 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

258 S.E.2d 922 (Cofer v. Turman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related