Herreras v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Herreras v. State

379 S.E.2d 12, 190 Ga. App. 359, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 197

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 17, 1989

Docket77850

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 379 S.E.2d 12 (Herreras 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

Herreras v. State, 379 S.E.2d 12, 190 Ga. App. 359, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 197 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Sognier, Judge.

Dimas Nicholas Herreras was convicted on charges of rape, aggravated sodomy, kidnapping, armed robbery, burglary, theft by taking of a motor vehicle, and possession of a knife during the commission of a felony. He appeals.

Appellant contends in his sole enumeration that the trial court erred by denying his motion and objection to the presence of the sheriff at the prosecution’s table during jury selection. The record reveals that the prosecuting attorney requested the court to allow the sheriff to remain at the table for the purpose of assisting with the selection of jurors, and stressed to the court that the sheriff’s presence was requested only during jury selection and that he would not remain at counsel table during trial.

Appellant’s enumeration is controlled adversely to him by Childs v. State, 257 Ga. 243 (357 SE2d 48) (1987), in which the court approved the sheriff’s presence at the prosecution table despite the invocation of the rule, and noted; “ ‘[i]t has been repeatedly held that it is within the discretion of the trial judge to permit a witness to remain in the courtroom to assist either the State or the accused.’ [Cit.] Generally, this discretion should be exercised only if the party requesting the exception can demonstrate a need for the presence of the witness. [Cits.] However, the sheriff is an officer of the court, and may be excepted from the rule on the court’s own initiative. [Cits.] Thus, we need not evaluate the state’s asserted need for the assistance of the sheriff, as a demonstration of such was unnecessary to the court’s exercise of discretion.” Id. at 251 (11).

Judgment affirmed.

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

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

Sognier, Judge.

Dimas Nicholas Herreras was convicted on charges of rape, aggravated sodomy, kidnapping, armed robbery, burglary, theft by taking of a motor vehicle, and possession of a knife during the commission of a felony. He appeals.

Appellant contends in his sole enumeration that the trial court erred by denying his motion and objection to the presence of the sheriff at the prosecution’s table during jury selection. The record reveals that the prosecuting attorney requested the court to allow the sheriff to remain at the table for the purpose of assisting with the selection of jurors, and stressed to the court that the sheriff’s presence was requested only during jury selection and that he would not remain at counsel table during trial.

Appellant’s enumeration is controlled adversely to him by Childs v. State, 257 Ga. 243 (357 SE2d 48) (1987), in which the court approved the sheriff’s presence at the prosecution table despite the invocation of the rule, and noted; “ ‘[i]t has been repeatedly held that it is within the discretion of the trial judge to permit a witness to remain in the courtroom to assist either the State or the accused.’ [Cit.] Generally, this discretion should be exercised only if the party requesting the exception can demonstrate a need for the presence of the witness. [Cits.] However, the sheriff is an officer of the court, and may be excepted from the rule on the court’s own initiative. [Cits.] Thus, we need not evaluate the state’s asserted need for the assistance of the sheriff, as a demonstration of such was unnecessary to the court’s exercise of discretion.” Id. at 251 (11).

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

379 S.E.2d 12, 190 Ga. App. 359, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herreras-v-state-gactapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack