110 Ga. App. 344 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1964
1. The discretion of the trial court in a criminal case in refusing to declare a mistrial because of remarks by counsel contended to be prejudicial will not be interfered with where it does not appear that the grant of the mistrial
The implication of the solicitor’s question did not go beyond the evidence in the case; it was accordingly not so prejudicial that the effect could be cured only by a mistrial. See Sheppard v. State, 44 Ga. App. 481 (4), 491 (162 SE 413); Pressley v. State, 207 Ga. 274 (4) (61 SE2d 113). In view of the fact that counsel for the defendant stated he did not wish the question withdrawn and rephrased, basing his reason on the fact that he intended to use it as a reason for offering evidence to the contrary, the failure of the trial court to use milder corrective measures short of a mistrial was likewise not reversible error. Special ground 1 is without merit.
2. The concept of a fair trial demands not only that the judge adhere to the rules of law, but that he satisfy himself, when the matter is brought to his attention, that no witness or party is imposed upon by reason of his dullness or ignorance
The general grounds of the motion for a new trial are abandoned. The trial court did not err in overruling the motion for any reason assigned.
Judgment affirmed.