McLaughlin v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

McLaughlin v. State

207 S.E.2d 629, 132 Ga. App. 88, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1607

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 12, 1974

Docket49138

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 207 S.E.2d 629 (McLaughlin 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

McLaughlin v. State, 207 S.E.2d 629, 132 Ga. App. 88, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1607 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinions

Pannell, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. A motion and amended motion for a new trial were overruled by the trial court and appellant appeals.

1. Appellant enumerates that the verdict is (1) contrary to the law, (2) contrary to the evidence, and, (3) that the court erred in failing to direct a verdict for the defendant. On appeal we are compelled to construe the evidence in support of the verdict. Ryder v. State, 121 Ga. App. 796, 798 (175 SE2d 882). Suffice it to say that the evidence at trial, while conflicting, will support the jury’s verdict. The refusal of the trial judge to direct a verdict of acquittal was not error as it was not demanded as a matter of law. The enumerated errors are without merit.

2. Appellant complains that the trial court improperly withdrew a portion of the charge to the jury concerning a partial charge as to impeachment. Following the charge, appellant’s counsel objected and the trial judge asked if it was desired to have the jury recalled so that he could tell them to disregard the charge. Counsel replied "Well, we might as well.” The charge was duly withdrawn, the jury’s attention invited specifically to the objectionable portion of the charge and, [89]*89the jury again was directed distinctly and unequivocally, to disregard it and not to consider it. The procedure employed by the trial judge was in accord with the error curing practice approved in Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Ray, 133 Ga. 126 (1) (65 SE 281), and we find no error. However, appellant urges that this was an incorrect procedure and that the entire charge should have been withdrawn and a new charge given. We know of no authority which compels such action and we are furnished no authority for the proposition. No request for recharging was made at trial, nor do we discern any prejudice to the appellant in any event. Cf. Walker v. State, 226 Ga. 292, 294 (174 SE2d 440).

Argued March 6, 1974 Decided June 12, 1974. Robert L. Ridley, for appellant. Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, JoelM. Feldman, Isaac Jenrette, Morris H. Rosenberg, for appellee.

3. The remaining enumeration of error is without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Eberhardt, P. J., concurs. Evans, J., concurs specially.

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

Pannell, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. A motion and amended motion for a new trial were overruled by the trial court and appellant appeals.

1. Appellant enumerates that the verdict is (1) contrary to the law, (2) contrary to the evidence, and, (3) that the court erred in failing to direct a verdict for the defendant. On appeal we are compelled to construe the evidence in support of the verdict. Ryder v. State, 121 Ga. App. 796, 798 (175 SE2d 882). Suffice it to say that the evidence at trial, while conflicting, will support the jury’s verdict. The refusal of the trial judge to direct a verdict of acquittal was not error as it was not demanded as a matter of law. The enumerated errors are without merit.

2. Appellant complains that the trial court improperly withdrew a portion of the charge to the jury concerning a partial charge as to impeachment. Following the charge, appellant’s counsel objected and the trial judge asked if it was desired to have the jury recalled so that he could tell them to disregard the charge. Counsel replied "Well, we might as well.” The charge was duly withdrawn, the jury’s attention invited specifically to the objectionable portion of the charge and, [89]*89the jury again was directed distinctly and unequivocally, to disregard it and not to consider it. The procedure employed by the trial judge was in accord with the error curing practice approved in Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Ray, 133 Ga. 126 (1) (65 SE 281), and we find no error. However, appellant urges that this was an incorrect procedure and that the entire charge should have been withdrawn and a new charge given. We know of no authority which compels such action and we are furnished no authority for the proposition. No request for recharging was made at trial, nor do we discern any prejudice to the appellant in any event. Cf. Walker v. State, 226 Ga. 292, 294 (174 SE2d 440).

Argued March 6, 1974 Decided June 12, 1974. Robert L. Ridley, for appellant. Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, JoelM. Feldman, Isaac Jenrette, Morris H. Rosenberg, for appellee.

3. The remaining enumeration of error is without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Eberhardt, P. J., concurs. Evans, J., concurs specially.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 S.E.2d 629, 132 Ga. App. 88, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mclaughlin-v-state-gactapp-1974.

Opinions

3. The remaining enumeration of error is without merit.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack