Nylen v. Tidwell
This text of 233 S.E.2d 245 (Nylen v. Tidwell) 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.
Opinion
This is an appeal from an order holding the appellant in contempt of court for repeatedly asking the same question to a juror on voir dire and which had been previously answered by the juror, despite the trial judge’s admonitions to cease and to move on to another area; and for making the following statement to the court: "I insist on one more answer.”
The appellant’s conduct in persisting in examining the juror authorized the finding that appellant was in contempt. See Crudup v. State, 218 Ga. 819 (130 SE2d 733). In contempt cases if there is any substantial evidence authorizing a finding that the party charged was guilty of contempt, and the trial judge so finds, his judgment must be affirmed insofar as the sufficiency of the evidence is concerned. Pedigo v. Celanese Corp. of America, 205 Ga. 392 (3) (54 SE2d 252).
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
233 S.E.2d 245, 141 Ga. App. 256, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nylen-v-tidwell-gactapp-1977.