Smith v. State, 289 Ga. 839

Scott Smith was convicted in 2003 of murder and related crimes, with judgment and sentences based on a jury verdict.
This Court previously affirmed the convictions on direct appeal in 2005.
In 2010 Smith filed a post-conviction motion requesting the trial transcript be amended to reflect that he had been restrained by a stun belt during trial, invoking OCGA § 15-1-3(6).
Smith claimed failure to amend would hinder post-conviction investigations into the stun belt’s effect on his trial; he provided no evidence that he wore a stun belt at trial.
The trial court denied the motion to amend the transcript; Smith appealed, arguing abuse of discretion.
The Supreme Court affirmed, holding Smith failed to prove the trial court abused its discretion in denying the transcript amendment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the transcript amendment	Smith asserts amendment is necessary to pursue post-conviction claims.	State contends no evidence supports wearing a stun belt and no abuse shown.	No abuse; judgment affirmed.

Ga. R. & Elec. Co. v. Carroll, 143 Ga. 93 (1915) (trial court may amend records to reflect truth; correction of palpable clerical mistakes)
Wright v. State, 275 Ga. 788 (2002) (abuse of discretion standard applied to denials of motions to amend transcript)
Spann v. State, 263 Ga. 336 (1993) (six requirements for extraordinary motions for new trial)
Jennings v. State, 277 Ga. App. 71 (2005) (mootness considerations for transcript-related motions)
Walker v. State, 258 Ga. 443 (1988) (abuse of discretion standard for denial of transcript amendments)
Malcolm v. State, 263 Ga. 369 (1993) (burden on party asserting error to show error by the record)