Ruth v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ruth v. State

431 S.E.2d 127, 208 Ga. App. 458, 93 Fulton County D. Rep. 1647, 1993 Ga. App. LEXIS 600

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 6, 1993

DocketA93A0602

StatusPublished

This text of 431 S.E.2d 127 (Ruth 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

Ruth v. State, 431 S.E.2d 127, 208 Ga. App. 458, 93 Fulton County D. Rep. 1647, 1993 Ga. App. LEXIS 600 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Defendant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to 20 years in confinement. Following the denial of his motion for a new trial, he appeals. Held:

In his sole enumeration of error, defendant contends his constitutional rights were violated when he was cross-examined for impeachment purposes about his silence (to police) after being advised of his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (86 SC 1602, 16 LE2d 694). “If such had erroneously been allowed despite timely and proper objection, the case would have to be reversed unless the state could show that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. [Cits.] However, . . . defendant . . . did not object... to the introduction of evidence of silence. . . . Thus, the trial court was not put on notice about the defendant’s objections, or given an opportunity to respond to the objections in a timely manner. [Cit.] . . . Here, any possible claim of error was procedurally defaulted. [Cit.]” Black v. State, 261 Ga. 791, 793 (1a) (410 SE2d 740).

Judgment affirmed.

Beasley, P. J., and Cooper, J., concur.

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

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Defendant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to 20 years in confinement. Following the denial of his motion for a new trial, he appeals. Held:

In his sole enumeration of error, defendant contends his constitutional rights were violated when he was cross-examined for impeachment purposes about his silence (to police) after being advised of his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (86 SC 1602, 16 LE2d 694). “If such had erroneously been allowed despite timely and proper objection, the case would have to be reversed unless the state could show that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. [Cits.] However, . . . defendant . . . did not object... to the introduction of evidence of silence. . . . Thus, the trial court was not put on notice about the defendant’s objections, or given an opportunity to respond to the objections in a timely manner. [Cit.] . . . Here, any possible claim of error was procedurally defaulted. [Cit.]” Black v. State, 261 Ga. 791, 793 (1a) (410 SE2d 740).

Judgment affirmed.

Beasley, P. J., and Cooper, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

431 S.E.2d 127, 208 Ga. App. 458, 93 Fulton County D. Rep. 1647, 1993 Ga. App. LEXIS 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruth-v-state-gactapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack