Shinholster v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Shinholster v. State

257 S.E.2d 342, 150 Ga. App. 221, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2125

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 5, 1979

Docket57799

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 257 S.E.2d 342 (Shinholster 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

Shinholster v. State, 257 S.E.2d 342, 150 Ga. App. 221, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2125 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Quillian, Presiding Judge.

The defendant appeals his conviction for violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. Held:

1. Error is assigned to the denial of the defendant’s motion to change of venue or a continuance based on allegedly prejudicial pre-trial publicity.

"The law in Georgia is well established, and a myriad of cases so hold, that a motion for a change of venue addresses itself to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and that discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless it can be shown that there was an abuse of this discretion.” Coleman v. State, 237 Ga. 84, 90 (226 SE2d 911). "The test regarding prejudicial pre-trial publicity is whether the jurors summoned to try the case have formed fixed opinions as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant from their exposure to the pre-trial publicity.” Potts v. State, 241 Ga. 67, 76 (243 SE2d 510).

The proof offered failed to establish actual prejudice to a degree that rendered a fair trial impossible. Watts v. State, 141 Ga. App. 127, 129 (3) (232 SE2d 590). We find no abuse of discretion in denying the motion.

2. The trial judge did not err in refusing to declare a mistrial.

Argued May 9, 1979 Decided June 5, 1979. H. G. Bozeman, for appellant. Beverly B. Hayes, District Attorney, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Smith and Birdsong, JJ., concur.

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

Quillian, Presiding Judge.

The defendant appeals his conviction for violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. Held:

1. Error is assigned to the denial of the defendant’s motion to change of venue or a continuance based on allegedly prejudicial pre-trial publicity.

"The law in Georgia is well established, and a myriad of cases so hold, that a motion for a change of venue addresses itself to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and that discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless it can be shown that there was an abuse of this discretion.” Coleman v. State, 237 Ga. 84, 90 (226 SE2d 911). "The test regarding prejudicial pre-trial publicity is whether the jurors summoned to try the case have formed fixed opinions as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant from their exposure to the pre-trial publicity.” Potts v. State, 241 Ga. 67, 76 (243 SE2d 510).

The proof offered failed to establish actual prejudice to a degree that rendered a fair trial impossible. Watts v. State, 141 Ga. App. 127, 129 (3) (232 SE2d 590). We find no abuse of discretion in denying the motion.

2. The trial judge did not err in refusing to declare a mistrial.

Argued May 9, 1979 Decided June 5, 1979. H. G. Bozeman, for appellant. Beverly B. Hayes, District Attorney, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Smith and Birdsong, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 S.E.2d 342, 150 Ga. App. 221, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shinholster-v-state-gactapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack