Rayner v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rayner v. State

380 S.E.2d 342, 190 Ga. App. 746, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 396, 1989 WL 67318

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 13, 1989

DocketA89A0454

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 380 S.E.2d 342 (Rayner 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

Rayner v. State, 380 S.E.2d 342, 190 Ga. App. 746, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 396, 1989 WL 67318 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Presiding Judge.

The appellant was convicted of child molestation, aggravated child molestation, and aggravated sodomy. The victim in each case was his 13-year-old daughter. His sole enumeration of error on appeal concerns the admission of certain testimony offered by his adult daughter concerning acts of molestation which he had committed against her when she was a child. The appellant does not contend that this testimony was inadmissible but maintains that it was incumbent upon the trial court to instruct the jury, without request, regarding the limited purposes for which such similar transaction evidence could be considered. Held:

It is axiomatic that where evidence has been admitted for a limited purpose “it is not error for the court to fail to instruct the jury to limit its consideration to the one purpose for which it is admissible, in the absence of a request to so instruct the jury.” Harrell v. State, 241 Ga. 181, 186 (2) (243 SE2d 890) (1978). See also Pyburn v. State, 175 Ga. App. 158 (2) (332 SE2d 899) (1985). As no request for such instructions was made in this case, it follows that no error has been established.

Judgment affirmed.

Sognier and Pope, JJ., concur.

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

Banke, Presiding Judge.

The appellant was convicted of child molestation, aggravated child molestation, and aggravated sodomy. The victim in each case was his 13-year-old daughter. His sole enumeration of error on appeal concerns the admission of certain testimony offered by his adult daughter concerning acts of molestation which he had committed against her when she was a child. The appellant does not contend that this testimony was inadmissible but maintains that it was incumbent upon the trial court to instruct the jury, without request, regarding the limited purposes for which such similar transaction evidence could be considered. Held:

It is axiomatic that where evidence has been admitted for a limited purpose “it is not error for the court to fail to instruct the jury to limit its consideration to the one purpose for which it is admissible, in the absence of a request to so instruct the jury.” Harrell v. State, 241 Ga. 181, 186 (2) (243 SE2d 890) (1978). See also Pyburn v. State, 175 Ga. App. 158 (2) (332 SE2d 899) (1985). As no request for such instructions was made in this case, it follows that no error has been established.

Judgment affirmed.

Sognier and Pope, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

380 S.E.2d 342, 190 Ga. App. 746, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 396, 1989 WL 67318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rayner-v-state-gactapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack