From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sheriff v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
May 11, 1981
280 S.E.2d 904 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)

Opinion

61538.

DECIDED MAY 11, 1981.

Burglary. Douglas Superior Court. Before Judge Noland.

Robert Wayne Pitts, Robert B. Edwards, for appellant.

William A. Foster III, District Attorney, Frank C. Winn, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.


Appellant appeals from his conviction of three counts of burglary.

1. Appellant enumerates as error the denial of his motion for an appeal bond. The hearing and the ruling of the trial court on this issue was in accord with the standards prescribed in Birge v. State, 238 Ga. 88 ( 230 S.E.2d 895) (1976). Jackson v. State, 153 Ga. App. 462, 464(5), ( 265 S.E.2d 368) (1980). The factual conclusions reached by the trial court were authorized by the evidence presented at the hearing and support the conclusion that appellant should be retained in custody. Royals v. State, 155 Ga. App. 389 ( 270 S.E.2d 908) (1980). There was no error.

2. The assertion that no hearing was held and no ruling was made on appellant's motion to suppress is refuted by the record. Accordingly, arguments that there was a procedural non-compliance with Code Ann. § 27-313 are without merit.

3. It is urged that the trial court erred "by allowing into evidence testimony which was prejudicial to the rights of the Appellant." We find this argument meritless. No objection was raised at trial to the admission of the testimony. Sheffield v. State, 235 Ga. 507 ( 220 S.E.2d 265) (1975). Moreover, the transcript demonstrates that most of the allegedly "prejudicial" testimony was elicited by appellant's defense counsel on cross-examination. "`Where counsel elicits testimony unfavorable to his client, he will not be heard to object to it, no matter how prejudicial it may be, if it is a direct and pertinent response to the question propounded. [Cits.]' [Cit.] This is especially true in the instant case since defense counsel raised no objection to the response elicited by his question. [Cit.] In fact, the transcript reveals that, here, the appellant's attorney actively pursued the `troubling answers.' [Cit.]" Rutland v. State, 158 Ga. App. 315 (2) (1981).

Judgment affirmed. Deen, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.

DECIDED MAY 11, 1981.


Summaries of

Sheriff v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
May 11, 1981
280 S.E.2d 904 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)
Case details for

Sheriff v. State

Case Details

Full title:SHERIFF v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: May 11, 1981

Citations

280 S.E.2d 904 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)
280 S.E.2d 904

Citing Cases

Reynolds v. State

First of all, there was no objection to the in-court identification at trial and this forecloses review of…