This appeal is from appellant’s conviction of one count of incest and two counts of statutory rape. The victim was appellant’s 12-year-old granddaughter.
1. In his first enumeration оf error, appellant raises the general grounds, contending that the state failed to corroborate the testimony of the victim as is required in a statutory rape case by Code Ann. § 26-2018. Thе record refutes that argument. There was medical testimony supportive of the victim’s testimony, evidence of the victim’s complaint at her first opportunity to do so, and evidence shоwing that appellant raped the victim’s mother (appellant’s daughter) when she was 12 years old. “Slight circumstances may be sufficient corroboration of the crime of rape in addition to the testimony of the female in order to convict. [Cits.] Evidence of similar crimes which have a logical connection may be offered in evidence to show plan, scheme, bеnt of mind and course of conduct. Such evidence has also been recognized as corroboration evidence. [Cits.]”
Wynne v. State,
2. Appellant’s second enumeration of error conсerns the admission into evidence of testimony concerning the content of the
*787
victim’s initial complaint on one of the occasions on which appellant was accused оf raping the victim. We find no error in the admission of that testimony. “In corroboration of the victim’s testimony that a rape has been committed on her, testimony is admissible that shortly after the commissiоn of the offense she made complaint to those to whom complaint would naturally be made. [Cit.] Where the complaint is made so shortly after the commission of the act as to сonstitute a part of the res gestae, the details of the complaint may be related. [Cits.]”
Price v. State,
3. Appellant contends in his third enumeration of error that the trial court erroneously curtailed defense counsel’s effort to perfect his objections to the grandmothеr’s testimony. However, appellant has not offered any ground in this court in opposition to the admission of that testimony that he did not offer below. Even assuming counsel’s objection was cut short by the trial court (the record does not demand such a conclusion), appellant has shown no harm therefrom. The third enumeration of error is without merit.
4. Three witnesses — the victim, the victim’s mothеr, and the victim’s grandmother — gave testimony concerning the victim’s paternity. Their testimony was that when the victim’s mother (appellant’s daughter) was 12 years old, appellant raped her, as a result of which the victim was conceived. In two enumerations of error, appellant contends that the evidence was inadmissible and that the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial when thе evidence was offered. We cannot agree.
Proof of similar offenses committed by the accused in a similar manner are admissible to show motive, plan, scheme, bent of mind and course of conduct.
Burnett v. State,
5. The sixth enumeration of error asserts that the trial judge, while questioning state witnesses, intimated an opinion as to facts and was argumentative and prosecutorial in tеnor, manner, and tone. “We have carefully examined the questions propounded by the trial judge and conclude they are not subject to these objections. ‘The trial
*788
judge has the right to propound a question or a series of questions to any witness for the purpose of developing fully the truth of the case; and the extent to which the examination conducted by the court shall go is a matter within his discretion. And a lengthy examination by the court of a witness called by either party will not be cause for a new trial, even though some of the questions propounded by thе court were leading in character, unless the court, during the examination of the witness by himself, expresses or intimates an opinion on the facts of the case, or as to what has or has not been proved, or the examination takes such course as to become argumentative in character.’ [Cits.] The tone of voice of a trial judge is not reviewable. [Cit.] This enumеration of error is without merit.”
Wilson v. State,
6. When defense counsel complained at trial about the court questioning witnesses, the relief sought was a mistrial. The trial court reserved a decision on the motion, but never ruled one way or the other. That failure to rule is the subject of appellant’s seventh enumeration of error.
Assuming that the court’s failure to rule was tantamount to a denial, wе see no error. As we held in the preceding division of this opinion, there was no error in the trial court’s questioning. That being so, appellant was clearly not entitled to a mistrial.
Furthermore, it is still the rule in criminal cases that a defendant dissatisfied with a trial court’s action on a motion for mistrial must renew the motion. The failure to do so amounts to a waiver.
Delaney v. State,
7. The eighth enumeration of error involves testimоny that the victim had been undergoing counseling. Appellant contends that testimony was not relevant and was prejudicial to him. While there may have been some prejudicial effect, wе see no error. The testimony was relevant to the establishment of a witness’ knowledge of matters in the case and to her role in initiating the prosecution. The admission of that testimony doеs not require reversal.
8. At the close of all the evidence, appellant moved for a directed verdict on the ground that the state had failed to prove venue. Appellаnt’s ninth enumeration of error complains of the denial of that motion.
Just as the Supreme Court in
Scott v. State,
9. Appellant’s tenth and eleventh enumerations of error have not been supported by argument or citation of authority. They are, therefore, deemed abandoned. Rule 15 (c) (2), Rules of the Court of Appeals (Code Ann. § 24-3615 (c) (2)).
10. In his twelfth enumeration of error, appellant complains of a jury instruction given by the trial court. However, at the conclusion of the jury charge the triál judge asked counsel whether he had any objections to the charge. Counsel replied that he did not. Having expressly waived оbjection in the trial court, appellant may not now raise objections to the charge.
White v. State,
11. Citing
McCranie v. State,
12. In his fourteenth and final enumeration of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in its consideration of prior convictions during the sentencing phase of the trial. Our review of the record reveals no objection by appellant to the procedure followed in sentencing. That being so, there is nothing for this court to review.
McKisic v. State,
Judgment affirmed.