Kane v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Kane v. State

295 S.E.2d 551, 163 Ga. App. 588, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 2583

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 17, 1982

Docket64542

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 295 S.E.2d 551 (Kane 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

Kane v. State, 295 S.E.2d 551, 163 Ga. App. 588, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 2583 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Sognier, Judge.

Escape from confinement. Appellant contends that the trial court erred by allowing him to be tried in prison clothing, and by failing to charge the jury on insanity.

1. The trial court stated on the record at the onset of trial that appellant had refused to wear civilian clothing which had been provided for him by the sheriffs office. The trial court also charged the jury that they should not consider the way appellant was dressed in determining his guilt or innocence. Thus, any error resulting from appellant’s appearance in prison clothing was self-induced, and induced error is impermissible. Reynolds v. State, 147 Ga. App. 488 (249 SE2d 305) (1978); Drake v. State, 142 Ga. App. 14 (234 SE2d 825) (1977).

2. No request to charge on insanity was made by appellant, and no evidence was presented relating to appellant’s mental condition. Hence, there was no basis for a charge on insanity, and the trial court did not err by failing to give such a charge. Morgan v. State, 224 Ga. 604, 607 (163 SE2d 690) (1968); Moore v. State, 142 Ga. App. 145, 146 (1) (235 SE2d 577) (1977).

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.

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

Sognier, Judge.

Escape from confinement. Appellant contends that the trial court erred by allowing him to be tried in prison clothing, and by failing to charge the jury on insanity.

1. The trial court stated on the record at the onset of trial that appellant had refused to wear civilian clothing which had been provided for him by the sheriffs office. The trial court also charged the jury that they should not consider the way appellant was dressed in determining his guilt or innocence. Thus, any error resulting from appellant’s appearance in prison clothing was self-induced, and induced error is impermissible. Reynolds v. State, 147 Ga. App. 488 (249 SE2d 305) (1978); Drake v. State, 142 Ga. App. 14 (234 SE2d 825) (1977).

2. No request to charge on insanity was made by appellant, and no evidence was presented relating to appellant’s mental condition. Hence, there was no basis for a charge on insanity, and the trial court did not err by failing to give such a charge. Morgan v. State, 224 Ga. 604, 607 (163 SE2d 690) (1968); Moore v. State, 142 Ga. App. 145, 146 (1) (235 SE2d 577) (1977).

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 S.E.2d 551, 163 Ga. App. 588, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 2583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kane-v-state-gactapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack