Lead Opinion
This case involves contracts for the sale of unshelled peanuts. Golden Peanut is a “sheller,” and plaintiffs are peanut farmers. It is undisputed that under federal regulations, each farm is assigned a limited quantity of “quota peanuts” that may be sold for domestic consumption. All peanuts produced in excess of the quota are labeled “additional peanuts,” which generally must be exported or crushed for oil. Contracts for the sale of additional peanuts are subject to regulation and must be approved by a federal agency. 7 CFR § 1446.107 (a) (1990).
At issue in this case are contracts for the sale of plaintiffs’ 1990 crops to Golden Peanut. Viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the jury’s verdict, the evidence adduced at trial demonstrates that Golden Peanut agreed to pay a “floor price” for plaintiffs’ quota peanuts and additional peanuts, with the understanding that a final price could be “lock[ed] in” later in the year. Witnesses for both sides testified that a floor price is simply a minimum price. The parties reduced their agreement to writing in April 1990, when they signed fifty-five contracts, one contract for each individual peanut farm. The words “
After the contracts were signed,
The prescribed method for “locking in” the actual price would be slightly different for quota peanuts and for additional peanuts. For quota peanuts, the plaintiffs had the right to designate as the sale price for all
The parties were unable to agree on the final prices. In mid-October, after a series of unsuccessful negotiations, Gaylord Coan, the president of Golden Peanut, unilaterally made what he deemed to be a final offer to pay plaintiffs $875 per ton for all quota peanuts and the previously agreed-upon floor price for additional peanuts ($401 or $440 per ton, depending on the type of peanut). Immediately following Coan’s offer, Golden Peanut sent plaintiffs a payment of approximately $900,000 which brought the amount that had previously been paid for quota peanuts to $875 per ton. The payment was accompanied by the “Varner-Bass Settlement Report,” which was a spreadsheet showing the calculation of the offered price for the quota peanuts. Plaintiffs accepted and negotiated the payment. Golden Peanut continued to pay plaintiffs $875 per ton for each subsequent delivery of quota peanuts and the floor price of $401 or $440 per ton for additional peanuts. Plaintiffs accepted the payments and never attempted to “lock in” a different price in accordance with the procedure regarding “spot prices,” “market prices,” and Rotterdam prices, et cetera. It is undisputed that plaintiffs never complained to Golden Peanut about the amount paid for the 1990 crops during the period between November 5,1990, and the filing of this lawsuit in 1994. The plaintiffs explained that Golden Peanut had prevented them from “locking in” a price by its unilateral actions in October and that Varner-Bass could not sue Golden Peanut in 1990 or 1991 because they were highly leveraged and hence compelled to accept the payments. In this action plaintiffs contend that they accepted the $875 per ton price for quota peanuts and the floor price for additional peanuts merely as partial payment of the total amount due.
Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that Golden Peanut breached the parties’ contracts by refusing to allow plaintiffs to lock in a higher market price for peanut crops in 1990 and, as a result, that Golden Peanut grossly underpaid them. After hearing the evidence, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs and awarded compensatory damages and interest for the quota peanuts and additional peanuts, as well as attorney fees for Golden Peanut’s bad faith.
On appeal, Golden Peanut enumerates two errors with respect to the jury charge given by the court and argues that the court erred in denying its motions for directed verdict and j.n.o.v. Because our decision regarding the jury charge on accord and satisfaction is dispositive of the case, we will address it first.
1. In its answer to the complaint, Golden Peanut raised the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction. At trial, Golden Peanut requested two pattern jury instructions on the subject, the charges found on page 24 of the Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions, Vol. I: Civil Cases. The trial court gave only one of the two charges requested by Golden Peanut, defendant’s request to charge no. 20, which is part A of the pattern charge on accord and satisfaction:
When a new agreement takes the place of an old one, this ends the old agreement. The legal words for such an end to an old agreement are accord and satisfaction. It takes place where the parties satisfy one agreement by making and carrying out a new one; where they expressly agree that the new one takes the place of the old; or where there is a new consideration for a new promise in place of the old one.
Despite Golden Peanut’s written request, the court declined to give its second requested charge on the subject, defendant’s request to charge no. 21, which is part B of the pattern charge:
When a party makes an offer of a certain sum to settle a claim, the amount of which is the subject of a bona fide dispute, with the condition that the sum offered, if taken at all, must be received in full satisfaction of the claim, and the party receives the money, he takes it subject to the condition attached to it, and it will operate as an accord and satisfaction.
It is the duty of the court to charge the jury on the law as to every controlling, material, substantial [,] and vital issue in the case. Where the court fails to give the benefit of a theory of the defense which is sustained by the evidence, a new trial must be granted.
Pritchett v. Anding,
After a verdict and judgment, an appellate court must construe the evidence with every inference and presumption in favor of upholding the verdict in the face of motions for a new trial or motions for j.n.o.v. See, e.g., Cohen v. Lowe Aviation Co.,
In the case at bar, if the court’s giving of part A of the pattern charge, defendant’s request to charge no. 20, adequately explained the defense, then no error would exist from the court’s failure to give part B of the pattern charge, defendant’s request to charge no. 21. There is no requirement “that [a] court instruct in the exact language of the request, even though the request may be correct as an abstract principle of law which is directly applicable to a material issue.” (Punctuation omitted.) Harper v. Samples,
We will first discuss whether the evidence made the disputed charge “directly applicable to a material issue” and then discuss whether the requested charge was redundant in view of the court’s having given part A of the pattern charge.
There was evidence of a dispute between the parties as to the final price, which dispute, according to Golden Peanut’s evidence, lasted from July through mid-October 1990. Bass and John Varner, principals of the corporate plaintiffs, testified that representatives of Golden Peanut and plaintiffs disagreed over the price, and Jerry Adams, a banker who loaned money to plaintiffs, testified without objection that Bass and Varner told him about the dispute concerning the 1990 crops. Likewise, Coan, Golden Peanut’s president, testified that the parties disagreed about the final price of the peanuts. Further, in his opening statement, counsel for plaintiffs referred to several disagreements between the parties in September and October. John H. Smith, Inc. v. Teveit,
Next, there is evidence that Coan made a final offer to plaintiffs to settle the claim during a telephone conversation with Bass and Varner in mid-October. Bass testified that following the “pretty heated conversation,” Coan said: “I’m tired of negotiating with /all. You’re going to take 875 and be happy with it, and that’s the deal. You are not going to get anything on the additionals.” According to Varner, there was “no question” that Coan said, “you’re going to take it, you’re going to be happy. I’m going to pay you the floor price on the additionals. I’m going to pay you 875 on the quotas, and we are going to stop talking about 1990.”
The evidence further demonstrates that Golden Peanut tendered the payment offered by Coan, and plaintiffs accepted that payment. Both Bass and Varner testified that they never attempted to lock in a different price for the 1990 crops with Golden Peanut. Accordingly, despite plaintiffs’ contention that they believed that the amount tendered by Golden Peanut was merely a partial payment,
Plaintiffs argue that the error, if any, was harmless, because the refused charge was substantially covered by the charge given. We disagree.
The jury was given part A of the pattern charge on accord and satisfaction. According to the official note to that paragraph, the charge is a restatement of OCGA § 13-4-101 “in simplified form.” The first sentences of the charge would be applicable to all accords and satisfactions. They are, like novations, new contracts substituted for old. See 6 Corbin on Contracts, § 1293, p. 189 (1962). But an existing contract can be discharged pursuant to OCGA § 13-4-101 only where there is an express agreement to a satisfaction or new consideration. See, e.g., Fowler v. Gorrell,
By contrast, part B of the pattern charge, which the court declined to give, describes a nonstatutory form of accord and satisfaction, having a different lineage than part A, and being more closely adjusted to the evidence at trial. The precise language of the charge first appeared in 1921 in Riley & Co. v. London Guaranty &c. Co.,
Significantly, part B requires no meeting of the minds. The satisfaction occurs by operation of law if the claimants keep the payment knowing of the implied condition. We have held that a creditor’s
acceptance of such a conditional payment extinguishes the disputed debt, “notwithstanding the fact that [the creditor] protests at the time that the remainder of the account is still due and owing.” (Punctuation omitted.) Chrietzberg v. Kristopher Woods, Ltd.,
The plaintiffs deny that any conditions were stated when the payment of approximately $900,000 was made by Golden Peanut in October 1990. They are correct that no notation on the check said “payment in full” and that no accompanying paperwork stated conditions. Furthermore, the plaintiffs are correct that the document labeled “Varner-Bass Settlement Report,” which accompanied the payment, is not necessarily determinative
The plaintiffs contend that their acceptance of the $900,000 payment and their later acceptance of $875 per ton for new deliveries of quota peanuts and of the floor price for additional peanuts did not constitute an acceptance of Coan’s offer to settle but were merely acceptances of partial payments of the total amount due to them. Their assertions, even if true, would not avail them if a bona fide dispute existed and if Coan did in fact attach the requisite condition to the payments. Even a partial payment admittedly due will extinguish the whole debt if a bona fide dispute exists, and the offeror makes the payment conditional on its acceptance being a satisfaction. Riley & Co., supra at 687, citing, e.g., Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Clark,
2. Although no issue is raised on appeal concerning whether Golden Peanut’s objection to the trial court’s failure to give its request to charge no. 21 was sufficient to preserve this issue for appellate review, our research has disclosed conflicting opinions on what is necessary to preserve objections to the trial court’s failure to give a written request to charge. For instance, we have held on several occasions that grounds for objection to the failure to give written requests to charge need not be stated at the conclusion of the charge; it is enough if the party voices an objection or exception and simply refers to the number of the requested charge. See Kres v. Winn-Dixie Stores,
However, there are other decisions of this Court which have held that a litigant must distinctly state the grounds for objection after the trial court fails to give a written request to charge in order to preserve the issue for appellate review. See, e.g., Mays v. Farah U.S.A.,
Many of our panel decisions trace their ancestry to Lissmore v. Kincade,
In the seminal decision of Continental Cas., supra, the Supreme Court expressly rejected the federal rule and made a distinction between subsections (a) and (b) of Code Ann. § 70-207, now OCGA § 5-5-24. The Court stated that objections to the charges which the trial judge did give are governed by subsection (a); therefore, a litigant must state distinctly the grounds for an objection to the charge as given. Id. at 16. By contrast, the Court stated expressly that subsection (b), and not subsection (a), governs how written requests to charge will be “handled” by a trial court. The Supreme Court noted that subsection (b) makes no mention of objections. Id. It then concluded that a mere objection to the trial court’s refusal to give a requested written charge, without restating the grounds, is adequate to preserve the issue for appeal. Writing for the majority, Justice Hawes reasoned as follows:
[N]o useful purpose could possibly be served by requiring that the grounds upon which counsel contend the charge should be given be repeated after the court has announced to counsel its decision that the requested charge will not be given and has instructed the jury omitting such requested charge. After the charge has been given, to require a restatement of grounds of objection to the refusal to charge timely submitted written requests would be putting form ahead of substance — a result we should always endeavor to avoid.
Continental Cas., supra at 17 (2).
The Continental Cas. opinion expressly holds that a party which has submitted a written request to charge need not “restate,” after the court has instructed the jury, the grounds for the party’s objection to the court’s omission of the requested charge. Justice Hawes, speaking for the Court, thus implies that the reason has already been stated to the trial judge. The opinion explains that “the court normally affords such party at that time[, i.e., when the charges are submitted,] an opportunity to state the grounds. . . .” Id. at 16 (2). The opinion does not address whether the charge conference must be reported or whether the grounds must appear somewhere in the record.
The otherwise clear decision in Continental Cas. does make a confusing distinction between a trial court’s failure to give a charge and its refusal to give a requested charge. Id. at 16 (2). The opinion states that subsection (a) of the Code section “relates to the manner in which a party may complain of the giving or of the failure to give an instruction to the jury.” (Emphasis in original.) Id. The opinion then states that subsection (b) relates to the manner in which written requests shall be submitted and handled by the court. The opinion pointed out that, unlike subsection (a), subsection (b) contains no provision relating to objections to the refusal to grant requests to charge. Id.
The confusion between failure and refusal to give a charge was eliminated by Kres v. Winn-Dixie Stores, supra, a 1987 unanimous whole court decision, where Judge Carley (now Justice Carley) parenthetically modified “failure” with the words “without request.” Id. at 856 (3). The whole court decision quoted with approval Roberson v. Hart,
“(although past decisions may suggest that objections to the court’s refusal to charge as requested are controlled by the same rule governing objections to the failure to charge (without request) or objections to the charges as given ((cits.)), the Supreme Court has held otherwise.”
Kres, supra at 856 (3). Thus, Continental Cas., as interpreted by our controlling whole court decision, stands for the proposition that subsection (a) of the applicable Code section governs objections to a court’s having given a particular charge or its failure to give an unrequested charge, and
Because we are bound by the Supreme Court decision of Continental Cas. and by our unanimous, whole court decision in Kres, it appears that Adams v. MARTA,
In the case at bar, counsel for Golden Peanut made his objections to the trial court’s jury instructions using the two different techniques authorized by our whole court decision in Kres and by the Supreme Court in Continental Cas. Counsel for Golden Peanut first made a minimalist, perfunctory objection to the court’s failure to give the charges he had requested, to wit: “We object to the failure to give defendant’s request to charge No. 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28.” He then went on, as required by OCGA § 5-5-24 (a), to state more elaborate objections to the charges the court did give, stating the grounds for each objection, to wit:
We object to the Court instructing the jury that if a person willfully testifies falsely, that they are required to disregard or shall disregard the remainder of their testimony unless corroborated. The jury has discretion to determine ... or accept any part of a witness’ testimony. I object to the burden of proof charge on confidential relations, not only in imposing the burden on the defendant, but the charge as written suggested to the jury as if the Court were commenting on the evidence in that we had failed to read the agreement. We object to the Court charging that the agreement on additional peanuts is legally enforceable. . . .
The minimalist objection by Golden Peanut to the failure to give timely submitted written requests to charge was adequate to preserve the objection according to Continental Cas. Significantly, in that case, appellant’s counsel did not even mention the numbers of the refused charges. The precise objection which was held to have been adequate to preserve the issue was the following: ‘Your Honor, I object to the failure of the court to charge those charges that I gave that the court did not give.” Continental Cas., supra at 15 (2).
Although we find that Golden Peanut did all that it was required to do to preserve its objections to the trial court’s refusal to give its written requests to charge, this does not end our consideration of this issue. Both Continental Cas. and Kres are premised on the rationale that it is unnecessary for litigants to state their grounds for objections to the trial court’s failure to give their written requests to charge at the conclusion of the charge because they have already done so. Thus, Continental Cas. states that the ground of objection need not be “restated.” Continental Cas., supra at 17. This obviously implies that the reason has already been stated to the trial judge. And Kres states
[t]hus, where the trial court refused to instruct the jury in accordance with a timely submitted written request, in order to secure review of that action on appeal it is unnecessary for the party to state grounds of objection to such refusal at the conclusion of the charge. It is only necessary that the refusal to charge be objected to at some point.
(Citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Id. at 856-857 (3). As Continental Cas. explains, the requirements of OCGA § 5-5-24 (b) that the charges be submitted to the court and served on the opposing party afford the trial court “every opportunity to be informed as to the contention of the respective parties concerning such request.” Id. at 17 (2). Moreover, the statute requires the trial court to inform the parties of its proposed action upon the requests prior to argument.
Neither Continental Cas. nor Kres requires that these pre-charge objections or discussions appear on the appellate record. Obviously, if the requested charge is a pattern charge, such as the one in the case at bar, or otherwise embodies a well-established principle of law, the argument urged to the court in support of giving the charge might itself be quite minimal. When the request is a pattern charge approved by the Council of Superior Court Judges, a citation to the book of Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions, placed at the bottom of the written request, should suffice to alert the trial court to counsel’s contention that the requested instruction is valid law in Georgia. Similarly, a party’s submission of a written charge is an assertion that counsel believes that the requested instruction is adjusted to the evidence presented at trial. Nothing else should be needed to preserve for appeal an objection to the court’s refusal to give such a charge except, of course, a reminder to the trial judge after the judge has instructed the jury that the party still objects or excepts to the charge not having been given. As explained by the Supreme Court of a neighboring state, we should not require “that the objecting party, in order to preserve for review an erroneous jury instruction, . . . deliver a discourse before the trial judge on the applicable law of the case.” Gardner v. Dorsey, 331 S2d 634, 637 (Ala. 1976).
On the other hand, there are other cases involving charges on novel points of law, in which a record of what transpired below would greatly aid this Court in deciding the issue on appeal. In novel cases, it would be helpful for counsel to cite on the record what authority supports the validity of the legal point made in the requested charge and precisely which evidence at trial makes the legal point applicable. Moreover, this comports with our general rule of appellate
Thus, the better practice, and the one we would urge the litigants and courts of this state to follow, is that the grounds of objection, i.e., the reasons urged for the requested charge, should be placed somewhere on the record, although all that is needed after the charge is a perfunctory objection identifying the omitted requested charge. And while the record need not be made with any particular formality, enough should appear so that the reviewing court can ascertain the grounds urged below.
3. While we conclude that the court erred in not giving the pattern jury charge on the theory of accord and satisfaction, we reject Golden Peanut’s contention that the court erred in denying its motions for directed verdict and j.n.o.v. on that issue.
It is well settled that the standard of appellate review of the denial of both a motion for directed verdict and a motion for j.n.o.v. is the any evidence test. Pulte Home Corp. v. Woodland Nursery &c.,
The question before this court is not whether the verdict and the judgment of the trial court were merely authorized, but is whether a contrary judgment was demanded. A judgment n.o.v. is properly granted only when there can be only one reasonable conclusion as to the proper judgment; if there is any evidentiary basis for the jury’s verdict, viewing the evidence most favorably to the party who secured the verdict, it is not error to deny the motion.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. See also Ruben’s Richmond Dept. Store v. Walker,
Based on this standard, we conclude that there was evidence to support the rejection of Golden Peanut’s accord and satisfaction defense and that the trial court properly denied the motion for directed verdict and submitted the case to the jury. Likewise, because there was an evidentiary basis for the jury’s verdict, the court properly denied the motion for j.n.o.v.
4. Next, Golden Peanut argues that the court erred in denying its motions for directed verdict and j.n.o.v. as to plaintiffs’ additional peanuts, alleging that plaintiffs’ theory of recovery violates a federal statute and its implementing regulations. We note that the court’s denial of the motions must be upheld if there is any supporting evidence and conclude that the court did not err. See Pulte Home Corp., supra at 456.
According to the statute in force in 1990, 7 USC § 1359 (a) (1988), additional peanuts could be marketed only through contracts that complied with federal regulations. The applicable regulations required that “the final contract price” of the additional peanuts appear on the contract and that the contract contain a prohibition against changing the price. 7 CFR § 1446.107 (a) (7), (12) (1990). In order for a contract to be approved, the contract price for additional peanuts must have been “[expressed in such a manner that a third party may determine . . . the actual price of the peanuts without a need for additional negotiations.” 7 CFR § 1446.108 (a) (1990). In 1990, contracts for additional peanuts had to be submitted to the local ASCS office by July 31. 7 CFR § 1446.107 (a).
Golden Peanut argues that the contracts at issue failed to comply with the applicable federal regulations because they did not specify a final price for additional peanuts other than the stated “floor price,” nor did they contain a formula by which a third party could determine the higher price. Thus, the additional peanuts could not have been purchased for a price higher than that specified in the contract. According to Golden Peanut, plaintiffs’ theories of recovery based on an alleged agreement that they could pick a market price at any time during the year were illegal and unenforceable. We reject this argument.
As a preliminary matter, we note that the three amici are correct that federal regulation
The contracts were negotiated by the parties and were actually prepared on a form supplied by Golden Peanut. Because Golden Peanut was one of the largest peanut shellers in the industry, it might be presumed that Golden Peanut was familiar with the applicable federal regulations. We are therefore troubled by one who negotiated a contract that it knew, or should have known, violated federal regulations subsequently attempting to evade its performance of that contract by claiming that the contract violated those regulations.
Regardless, while Georgia law dictates that a court cannot enforce a contract “to do an immoral or illegal thing,” we do not find that the contracts in the case sub judice required illegal conduct. See OCGA § 13-8-1; Moore v. Dixon,
Our recent decision, cited by amicus, Maner v. Chatham County,
Furthermore, the evidence does not preclude a finding that the contracts complied with federal regulations. First, we recognize that nine ASCS offices independently approved the contracts as complying with federal regulations. At a minimum, there was evidence to support plaintiffs’ contention that the parties had agreed to a method for determining the final price of additional peanuts by locking in a market price later in the year. Accordingly, we conclude that the court did not err in denying Golden Peanut’s motions for directed verdict and j.n.o.v. as to the additional peanuts.
5. Golden Peanut assigns error to the court’s denial of its motion for j.n.o.v., based on its contention that the jury impermissibly relied on parol evidence of the parties’ alleged agreement to lock in a price later in the year. Golden Peanut argues that evidence of an alleged oral agreement reached before the contracts were executed was barred by the contracts’ merger clause.
As a preliminary matter, we recognize that Golden Peanut failed to object to the admission of parol evidence at trial and actually introduced its own parol evidence. Golden Peanut’s failure to object acts as a waiver of this argument on appeal. Franklin v. Towe,
In the case sub judice, plaintiffs introduced parol evidence of the parties’ agreement to lock in a higher price later in the year to explain the meaning of the term “floor price” in the contracts. Because parol evidence is admissible to complete an agreement, the court did not err in allowing the jury to consider it. See Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones,
6. Finally, Golden Peanut argues that the court erred in charging the jury on OCGA § 11-2-305 (3), which provides: “When a price left to be fixed otherwise than by agreement of the parties fails to be fixed through the fault of one party [,] the other may at his option treat the contract as cancelled or himself fix a reasonable price.” Golden Peanut contends that the charge was inapplicable to the evidence and misled the jurors by leading them to believe that Golden Peanut’s refusal to pay the disputed amount gave plaintiffs the right to fix a price bearing no relationship to the contracts. See John D. Robinson Corp. v. Southern Marine &c. Co.,
There was evidence, however, that the parties had agreed to a method for arriving at a price, by which plaintiffs would lock in a market price during the year. There is at least some evidence that Golden Peanut prevented plaintiffs from locking in a price and, thus, caused the “floor price” agreement to fail. At a minimum, the evidence presented a jury question as to the fault of Golden Peanut.
Golden Peanut relies on a Seventh Circuit case for the proposition that the charge at issue applies only when some action by the parties is required to enable a third party or external agency to set the price in accordance with the agreement. Weisberg v. Handy & Harman, 747 F2d 416, 420 (7th Cir. 1984). However, Golden Peanut has cited no Georgia case to support its argument, and our research reveals none. Moreover, OCGA § 11-2-305 (3) is silent as to third parties. Because it is the duty of the court to charge the jury on the law as to every issue in the case which is even minimally sustained by the evidence, we cannot conclude that the court erred in charging the
Judgment reversed.
Notes
Accord Adams v. MARTA,
The parties stipulated that a general objection was sufficient “basis for the record” without reading the request into the record.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring specially.
Although I concur fully in Divisions 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6,1 must concur specially as to Division 3 because I believe Golden Peanut (Golden) was entitled to a directed verdict on the issue of accord and satisfaction.
As set out in the majority, it is not disputed that in October 1990, Coan, on behalf of Golden, told Bass and Varner that $875 per ton on the quota peanuts and the floor price on the additional peanuts was all that Golden was going to pay and there would be no further discussion of the 1990 peanuts. It is also undisputed that, after this declaration by Coan, Varner-Bass was sent, received, and cashed over $900,000 in payments based on the $875 per ton quota peanuts and floor price per ton additional peanuts. As Bass
The later protest, made by instituting this litigation and contending in response to Golden’s motion for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict that the payments were accepted only as an advance on a larger sum, was unavailing. Redmond & Co. v. Atlanta &c. R.,
Therefore, I believe Golden was entitled to a directed verdict or j.n.o.v. on the defense of accord and satisfaction. See Gary v. E. Frank Miller Constr. Co.,
Concurrence Opinion
concurring specially.
I concur fully with the result reached by the majority, but write specially with regard to Division 2. In assessing any error in the failure of the trial court to give a written request to charge, our main concern is whether at some point the grounds for the objection have been given on the record. Of course if the grounds were given prior to the charge to the jury, and this court has those grounds of record, there is no requirement that they be restated, and this court can review the error after determining whether those same grounds are argued on appeal. It is well established that review of the charge enumerated is limited to the ground of objection stated at trial.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Pope, Presiding Judge Smith, Judge Ruffin and Judge Barnes join in this special concurrence.
Benson v. Tucker,