From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Iler v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Sep 30, 1976
229 S.E.2d 543 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)


52618, 52619.



Motor vehicle theft. Gwinnett Superior Court. Before Judge Merritt.

Margaret Hopkins, James R. Venable, for appellant.

Bryant Huff, District Attorney, Richard T. Winegarden, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

1. Code § 27-1403 requires the state to furnish the defendant with a list of witnesses "on demand, previously to his arraignment." To invoke the provisions of this section, it is necessary that a demand be made for the names prior to the arraignment. Jones v. State, 224 Ga. 283 (5) ( 161 S.E.2d 302). The defendant's present attorney made no such demand, and could not in any event complain. It appears from the record, however, that prior counsel for the accused was in fact furnished a copy prior to the arraignment. The court properly overruled a motion to exclude one of the witnesses for the state, made by the subsequently employed attorney at the time of trial.

2. The trial court may, after a witness has left the stand, allow him recalled, and in his discretion may require the side so recalling the witness to adopt him as its own. Eberhart v. State, 121 Ga. App. 663 (3) ( 175 S.E.2d 73). There was no abuse of discretion in ruling that a witness who was the victim of the motor vehicle theft for which the defendant was on trial, when recalled by the defendant, was subject to direct rather than cross examination. In point of fact, except for reiteration of testimony previously given by the witness of the circumstances of the theft, the only facts elicited were that the car had two doors and that there was an orange board inside. Obviously no prejudice resulted from the ruling.

3. Argument by the district attorney expressing a personal opinion that the defendant is guilty is objectionable ( Broznack v. State, 109 Ga. 514 (2) ( 35 S.E. 123)) and when condoned by the trial court constitutes reversible error. The same result should apply to a statement of counsel in argument that the defendant is lying. Where, however, the objection is sustained and the district attorney apologizes, there is normally no abuse of discretion in denying a motion for mistrial. Floyd v. State, 143 Ga. 286, 287 (5) ( 84 S.E. 971); Bivins v. State, 72 Ga. App. 306 ( 33 S.E.2d 745).

4. Motor vehicle theft, of which the defendant was found guilty, is a felony as to which the grant or denial of post conviction bail pending appeal is discretionary with the court. Smith v. State, 203 Ga. 636 ( 47 S.E.2d 866); Ingram v. Grimes, 213 Ga. 652 (2) ( 100 S.E.2d 914).

Judgments affirmed in both cases. Quillian and Webb, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Iler v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Sep 30, 1976
229 S.E.2d 543 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)
Case details for

Iler v. State

Case Details

Full title:ILER v. THE STATE (two cases)

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Sep 30, 1976


229 S.E.2d 543 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)
229 S.E.2d 543

Citing Cases

Williams v. State

In a line of cases relied upon by the appellant, it has been held repeatedly, consistent with DR 7-107…

Wilbanks v. State

Such improprieties constitute reversible error, however, only if the court condones them and takes no action…