Brown v. StateBrown v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Shulman
Defendant appeals from his conviction for rape.
1. Appellant contends that the trial court committed reversible error in holding that certain evidence would not be admissible at trial. We disagreе.
The state made a motion in limine for the purрose of determining the scope of admissible evidence of the victim’s past sexual conduct. The court determined that evidence would be limited to any acts of intercourse betwеen the victim and others occurring during the time *287 frame in which laboratory tests would detect the presence of live sperm. There was no restriction of evidence regarding consent; cоnsent was not an issue.
Appellant did not object to this restriction. Rather, appellant’s cоunsel affirmatively stated that he “didn’t plan to get intо that [anyhow].” Indeed, at trial, counsel for defendant never attempted to introduce evidеnce of the victim’s sex partners within the time frame permitted by the court.
Pretermitting whether such evidеnce was admissible or whether the state had аuthority to seek a court determination as to the admissibility of such evidence prior to defеndant’s offering the same, appellant has failed to show reversible error. Mahone v. State, 120 Ga. App. 234 (3) (170 SE2d 48) (no showing of revеrsible error where no avowal of testimony proposed to be elicited).
We need nоt decide the propriety of limitation of еxamination “since ‘[a]n issue raised as a basis for a motion for a new trial which was not asserted during the trial, cannot be asserted on apрeal as a basis for reversal.’ [Cit.]” Hollis v. State, 137 Ga. App. 298 (223 SE2d 491).
2. Appellаnt argues that he had an absolute right to proсeed to trial with counsel who was originally aрpointed rather than the retained counsel who was employed by relatives and friends. Unfortunately, the record is absolutely silent as to this issue.
Aрpellant’s contentions are not suppоrted by the transcript of the proceedings and therefore are not properly befоre us for consideration. Johnson v. State, 139 Ga. App. 829 (1) (229 SE2d 772).
“The burden is on the appellant to show error by the record, and when a portion of the evidence... bearing upon the issue raised by the enumeration of error, is not brought up so that this court can make its determination from a consideration of it all, an аffirmance as to that issue must result. [Cits.]” Law v. State, 121 Ga. App. 106 (2), 108 (173 SE2d 98).
3. Remaining enuiüerаtions are not supported by argument or authority. Accordingly, they are deemed abandoned. Terrell v. State, 138 Ga. App. 74 (225 SE2d 470).
Judgment affirmed.
Bell, C. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.