Aрpellants were tried together by a jury in DeKalb County State Court. Charles Ogletree and David Duncan were convicted of two counts of battery and Charlie Ruth, Willie Hardeman, Emanual Hardeman, and Arthur Allen, Jr., were convicted of two counts of battery *846 and one count of being a party to a crime.
The convictions arose from an incident which occurred during a meeting of a church in which appellants and the victim wеre members. After the victim argued with Allen, the church pastor, Allen ordered W. Hardeman, Ruth, Duncan, and E. Hardeman to whip the victim. E. Hardeman and Duncan held the victim by her arms while W. Hardeman and Ruth beat the victim with belts. Allen then directed Hightower and Ogletree to continue beating the victim. Allen testified that the beating lasted from 20 to 30 minutes until the victim was “beaten into submission.” He further testified that the аppellants continued to beat the victim after she had fallen to the floor. Two days after the beating, the victim showеd her severely bruised and cut legs to her aunt. The victim’s aunt called the police.
At the trial of the case, Allen refused indigent counsel and elected to represent himself. The remaining appellants also refused indigent counsel and elеcted to have Allen represent them at trial. No transcript or other recording of the trial was taken; therefore, pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-41 (g) a stipulation of trial testimony was prepared and entered on the record as the evidence аnd arguments presented at trial. On appeal, appellants are represented by counsel and assert sevеral enumerations of error.
1. In their first enumeration of error, appellants assert that “because the U. S. and Georgiа Constitutions protect an individual’s right to participate in corporal punishment as a religious practice and bеcause the physical harm in this case was not substantial, the trial court erred by failing to grant [their] motion for new trial on the general grounds that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts.”
We are unable to reach the merits of this enumеration, to the extent that it raises First Amendment issues not raised below. “ ‘Constitutional issues not raised below are not preservеd for appeal. (Cits.)’ [Cits.]”
Cox v. State,
This enumeration also raises a question as to the sufficiency of the evidence for apрellants’ convictions. “A person commits the offense of battery when he intentionally causes substantial physical harm or visible bodily harm to another.” OCGA § 16-5-23.1 (a). Appellants contend that the victim consented to the beating; however, her consеnt would make no difference to our analysis. “It is the act and intent and results of the defendant’s act which constitute the crimеs as charged; the attitude of the victim is not called into issue by these elements.”
Ramey v. State,
“ ‘On appeal the evidence must be viewed in the light most
*847
favorable to support the verdict, and appellant no longer еnjoys a presumption of innocence; moreover, an appellate court determines evidence suffiсiency and does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility. (Cit.)’ [Cit.]”
Cox,
2. In their second enumeration of error, the appellants contend that the trial court erred in failing to individually question those members of the jury panel who were challenged for cause duе to their belief in not “whipping their children.” The record discloses that Allen objected to the entire venire panel bеcause they stated that they did not believe in whipping their children and because they were white. When the trial court failеd to remove the panel, Allen refused to make any strikes. Thereafter, the trial court opened the jury selection to a 17-person jury panel which was presented to appellants. The selection process then began аnew. The record does not reflect any further objections to the panel or individual jurors. Appellants have failed to affirmatively show error by the record after the trial court opened up the venire panel and started the selection process again.
Karvonen v. State,
3. Appellants’ enumerations of error nos. 3 and 4 both assert error concerning evidentiary rulings made by the trial court. On appeal, appellants contend that the evidence sought to be introduced wаs admissible for impeachment purposes. However, appellants failed to make any response or proffer to the State’s relevancy objection to the evidence at trial. Therefore, this enumeration is without merit. Seе
Anderson v. Jarriel,
4. In their last enumeration of error, appellants assert that the trial court erred in failing to allow them to present еvidence of specific acts of good conduct of Allen to restore his good character after the Stаte’s presentation of evidence that Allen was violent. The State presented no evidence which put Allen’s character into evidence beyond the facts proving the charges against Allen. By Allen’s own testimony, he agreed that he ordered the beating and that the victim was “beat into submission.” Appellants were allowed character witnesses; nine character witnesses testified on behalf of appellants as to their general reputation in the community.
Cunningham v. State,
182 Ga.
*848
App. 591 (
While the law permits a party to represent himself at trial, one choosing to do so is entitled to no special treatment because he is not qualified for the task.
Judgments affirmed.