Everett v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Everett v. State

288 S.E.2d 233, 160 Ga. App. 809, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 1693

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 5, 1982

Docket63026

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 288 S.E.2d 233 (Everett 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

Everett v. State, 288 S.E.2d 233, 160 Ga. App. 809, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 1693 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Judge.

The defendant appeals his conviction on two counts of kidnapping. His sole enumeration of error concerns the trial court’s failure to declare a mistrial when the state’s attorney sought to question him concerning his testimony in Recorder’s Court during a bail proceeding. The trial court rebuked the state’s attorney and instructed the jury to disregard the question. Held:

“The extent of a rebuke and curative instruction is within the discretion of the trial court. Benefield v. State, 140 Ga. App. 727 (3) (232 SE2d 89). In view of the immediate and thorough corrective action of the court in the instant case, we cannot say that the court’s refusal to grant a mistrial constituted an abuse of discretion. See Johnson v. State, 143 Ga. App. 169 (3) (237 SE2d 681). See also Campbell v. State, 143 Ga. App. 445 (2) (238 SE2d 576).” Smith v. State, 154 Ga. App. 258 (4) (267 SE2d 863) (1980).

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Carley, J., concur.

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

Banke, Judge.

The defendant appeals his conviction on two counts of kidnapping. His sole enumeration of error concerns the trial court’s failure to declare a mistrial when the state’s attorney sought to question him concerning his testimony in Recorder’s Court during a bail proceeding. The trial court rebuked the state’s attorney and instructed the jury to disregard the question. Held:

“The extent of a rebuke and curative instruction is within the discretion of the trial court. Benefield v. State, 140 Ga. App. 727 (3) (232 SE2d 89). In view of the immediate and thorough corrective action of the court in the instant case, we cannot say that the court’s refusal to grant a mistrial constituted an abuse of discretion. See Johnson v. State, 143 Ga. App. 169 (3) (237 SE2d 681). See also Campbell v. State, 143 Ga. App. 445 (2) (238 SE2d 576).” Smith v. State, 154 Ga. App. 258 (4) (267 SE2d 863) (1980).

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Carley, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 S.E.2d 233, 160 Ga. App. 809, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 1693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/everett-v-state-gactapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack