*1 trial hearing court did conduct presence an extensive outside the jury. During course of this hearing, trial court addressed tipsters, issues of the status informants as mere of the ex- tent of the agent’s undercover of their and ad- knowledge identities dresses, appellant and of given oppor- should have been tunity to see concerning documents the existence of these informants in response pre-trial Brady hearing, his motion. During both appellant questioned trial court and the undercover officer cerning by played role in informants connection with the purchase of the appellant. transcript cocaine from hearing The shows procedural and Thornton requirements substantive State, v. supra, merely were satisfied. a person “Where an un- takes agent dercover to a location and identifies introduces agent to a drugs, seller of arrangements being wholly with all for the sale made by agent, introducer, the sale is such witnessed introducer is nothing tipster more than an informer acts and as a court, only. . . . . . . Under the facts trial before the [Cits.]. discovery were no in rights Brady the tipster Mary- mandated land, and thus the disclosure rested within the sound [cit.] discretion of the trial court. We discern no in abuse that discretion State, (308 case.” Gilmore v. 168 Ga. App. [this] (1983). State, See also Carver v. 175 Ga. App.
2. It necessarily follows from our holding Division 1 that State’s alleged failure to disclose the identities of the two informants valid basis for a motion to strike the undercover officer’s testimony. Accordingly, appellant’s enumeration of the of such denial motion erroneous is without merit. Sognier, and concur. September Morris,
Keith M. appellant. for Thomas, Jr., Glenn Attorney, District Stephen Kelley, D. Assis- tant Attorney, District
76660. MONEY et al. v. DANIEL. Judge.
Sognier, Brenda Sue Daniel brought Wayne against action Donald Transus, Money and Inc. recover out damages arising of a collision between an automobile operated by Daniel and a tractor-trailer truck owned Transus and Money. Money driven an- and Transus damages re- A trial truck. swered and counterclaimed sulted the appeal Money Daniel, Transus in a verdict for judgment thereon. rendered city of Co- occurred record reveals that the accident park- right onto street lumbus as turned proceeded ing ployer’s his em- south. lot was almost head-on the street. truck north on *2 testimony imaginary was the near centerline of street. the may flicting over the center- have been to vehicle or vehicles as which speed line, as the of the truck. to give by failing Appellants their to erred contend the trial court
1. portions requested charges the of the Uniform Rules of as to certain specifically Road, §§ 40-6-73 and 40-6-144. OCGA provides to a vehicle about § “[t]he that driver of 40-6-73 OCGA roadway any roadway place than another a other enter or cross shall roadway yield approaching right-of-way on the all vehicles the to provides “[t]he that § 40-6-144 to be entered or crossed.” OCGA building, alley, emerging road, or a from an driver of vehicle driveway stop such vehi- shall within a business or residential district immediately prior a or onto the sidewalk cle area to onto sidewalk driveway alley, building extending road, entrance, or across such stop point area, near- or, in at the event is no sidewalk shall the approach- has a view of est the street to be where the driver entered ing traffic thereon.” appellee just undisputed had
It at time of is that driveway employer’s parking indicating roadway lot. from the of her entered However, pellee stopped ap- testimony whether in the record no roadway. Appellee entering that testified before memory before the acci- moments she had no of accident appellee in the dent. before her duced at trial that he saw testified ad- other was entered the No evidence
vehicle party point. whether, as on this We need not decide either contradictory appellee argues, Money’s prior testimony was on deciding, point assuming, was, that it neither without because entering stopped appellee the road- version before indicates whether way. adjusted requested charges were, thus, to the facts given only requested charge a “A when it embraces the case. need be adjusted pertinent complete principle and is correct and law ” (Emphasis supplied.) Sapp v. John- to the the case. facts of 82) (1987). (1) (362 App. son, 184 Ga. 605 SE2d stopped question appellee Further, her vehicle any entering to the issue before not related evidence the street was liability had case, if in the for the collision. Even which was roadway, stop entering no evi- the record contains failed to before argument any to the was related dence or that such failure
217 scope accident. Accordingly, jury’s inquiry of the did not encom- pass subject matter requested charges, statutes give failure to Atkinson v. Allstate charges was not error. See Co., (2) (354 Ins. App.
2. Although appellants enumerate as error the trial in- court’s struction to that party right-of-way, neither had absolute appellants Rather, record shows that object did not the charge. when asked any objections the trial court he charge had to the as given, appellants’ attorney objected only give to the failure to their requested charges By discussed in failing object to the charge given, appellants appellate waived consideration this is- Willis, sue. AAA Van Svcs. Ga. App.
(1986).
3. Although appellants contend in their final enumeration of er- ror the trial testimony court erred excluding certain the in- vestigating police collision, officer as to the cause of the even assum- ing this testimony admissible, see Massee v. State Farm &c. Ins. Co., 128 Ga. 443-444 (1973), appellants proffer any failed to evidence as to what testimony excluded “ would have been. ‘On examination, direct to afford basis for the error, assertion of appear pertinent it must that question asked, court ruled out an that statement was made to the *3 court at time showing be, what the answer would and that such testimony was material and would have benefited the complaining party.’ Bank, Zohbe v. First Nat. [Cit.]” As nothing there is in the record to indicate proof offer of on the excluded nothing in this re- gard for us to appeal. review on Id. Carley, concurs. concurs
specially.
Deen, Presiding Judge, concurring specially.
While concurring fully in Divisions and 3 judgment, I agree cannot with all that is said party failing on a before entering the September
Charles Walker, E. appellants. Hardegree,
William B.