*1 266 Brady Giglio?
in violation of We find no abuse of discretion 200, State, the (3) (517 motion. See Ottis v. 271 Ga. denial of mistrial 525) (1999). mistrial, wit- After Smith moved for testify surrounding any ness returned to and the circumstances deal prosecution between the and the witness were made known to the jury. fully probed Moreover, Smith those circumstances cross- prosecution Thus, examination. it cannot be said that had engaged in misconduct which would have affected the outcome of the (2) (523 jury’s deliberations, State, 800, see Coleman v. 271 Ga. grant and warranted the of a mistrial. admitting 4. The trial court did not abuse into surrounding evidence the circumstances Smith’s arrest. Benford 795) (2000). State, 348, The circumstances charged they admissible, were relevant to the crime and were if they incidentally put State, character in Smith’s issue. Dukes v. 890, State, 333, Ga. 335 Ivester v. 674) (1984). erroneously charged jury
5. The trial court that it could infer deadly weapon. the intent to kill from intentional use of a State, v. evidence of malice overwhelming. highly probable it is judgment, that the error did not contribute to the and the error must State, be deemed harmless. Scott v. All the Justices concur. Kneller, Tara L. Attorney, Howard, Jr., Hart,
Paul L. District Bettieanne C. Assis- Attorney, Attorney Baker, General, tant District Thurbert E. Ruth M. Attorney Pawlak, General, Assistant
S02A1902. PATEL v. PATEL.
Carley,
(Father)
obstetrician/gynecologist
Hamant Bahailal Patel
is an
began
who
an extramarital
Walker,
affair with Catherine
an
employee
patient,
eventually
colleagues
and was
asked
his
Brady Maryland,
(1963); Giglio
tation person their exercise of a certain exposure
unless the evidence demonstrates that
to that indi-
adversely
Brandenburg
vidual would
affect the children.
v. Branden-
burg,
case,
In this
how-
fully complied
Brandenburg by granting
ever, the trial court
presence.
liberal visitation to Father without
to Ms. Walker’s
place any
Moreover, the trial court did not
unauthorized restriction
rights. Compare
on the exercise of custodial
Arnold,
Arnold v.
(567
12) (2002). merely
physical
Ga. 354
It
awarded sole
cus-
tody to Mother.
important
The law of this state makes an
distinction between
custody
rights
visitation and
determinations. Visitation
should be
probative
awarded to a
unless there is
evidence that he or she
714)
morally
is
unfit.
v. Woodruff,
and to award as it looks to the the child or Brown v. children. (1966). OCGA a confers on the default such that the trial court party, proof should to that absence circum- showing that stances entry the children’s welfare will be better served 188, 189 award. different Gunnells Rigdon, (1966). proof If there must then on the best interests of the parties making children, but also consider the conduct of the Mock v. determination. Although the trial court exercise its in determin- ing what is in the best interest “the whom granted ordinarily divorce child entitled to the of the minor parties. Newman, ALR3d 6 . .” or children Newman v. 278, 281 & also 23 2002). Supp. trial court the divorce in this case on the this recognized, Court has based on OCGA 19-9-1 and several previous cases, “that the conduct relevant on the *3 though issue of the a divorce the that [Cits.]” Harris, v. 30) (1977) (approving Ga. the trial court’s state- required ment that the exercise of a sound discretion would be to presumption overcome the not in default was entitled custody). supra; Mock, CJS, to also Divorce, Mock v. 27C (“In (c), p. determining the interests child best of the the courts may parties; consider facts which the relate to relative faults of the ordinarily, preference may given be at or should to the not .”). . fault.
If, like hold, as cases and the trial sufficiently permit court’s to broad an award of primary to the divorce, whose conduct the cause the certainly enough then that discretion is wide allow a to fault, award in the favor of not at the trial as court does disregard regarding other evidence the the chil- Nothing transcript dren. court in the record or the that indicates the trial
disregarded such or evidence believed that Father’s conduct Compare Mock, mandated an to Mother. Mock v. supra. ruling, continuing In its oral the trial court evaluated the cir- light cumstances caused in the divorce of the best specifically weighing the children, their emotional state and the con- fusing effect of those circumstances on them. trial court further genuinely considering demonstrated that was all of the factors may joint which physical custody may affect the children’s welfare when it indicated that appropriate change
well the event of a remarriage as Father. Accordingly, find that we the trial court did not abuse its discre- physical custody awarding tion in sole to Mother. failing
2. Father further contends that the trial court erred to parties’ 13-year-old determining consider desires child (a) (B), §§ its award of See OCGA 19-9-1 19-9-3 (a) (4.1). complain appeal, Father cannot as he did not raise this present any Big below issue evidence of the child’s desires. See ham, Bigham, Ga. Douse v. Douse, except concur, Hunstein, J, All the Justices specially. who concurs Justice,
Hunstein, concurring specially. agree majority’s While I that determination the trial court did not abuse its discretion in interpretation mother,
the children to their
I take issue with its
Notwithstanding
OCGA 19-9-1
this case.
right
majority
prevailing party
accords
in a
required
recognize any presumption
divorce, trial
courts are
to
upon
entitlement
in default,
give primary emphasis
instead
to the best interest of the child
parents.
in contest
Mock Mock,
between
Michael J. Matthew R. Benjamin Driggers, Burnette, G. Samuel D. & Buford, Buford Floyd Jr., Buford, M. S02G0871. JOHNSON v. AMERICAN RED NATIONAL CROSS.
Hines, Appeals certiorari to the Court of in Johnson v. 242) (2002), App. Cross, American Nat. Red applying consider whether it erred in McAllister v. American Nat. 247) (1977), Cross, Red Martin, and Russaw v. negligence to bar claims against the defendant American National Red Cross a/k/a American (“Red Cross”). accept- Red Cross The suit arose from the Red Cross’s region ance of blood from a donor who had lived in a a rare and undetectable strain of human in Africa where immunodeficiency virus (“HIV”) subsequent was known to exist and the transfusion of such judgment follow, blood. For the reasons which we affirm the of the to the Appeals upholding summary judgment Court of negligence Red Cross on the claims. following giving facts rise to this suit are detailed in the
opinion Appeals. age of the Court of Prior to her death at Bernice multiple Mantooth suffered from serious medical conditions includ- ing emphysema, angina, lung anemia, cancer, disease, breast heart kidney pneumo- cancer, bronchitis, diabetes, asthmatic failure, and August 29, 1998, nia. On Mantooth went to the Cartersville Medical (“CMC”) emergency complaining pain Center room of chest shortness of breath. She was examined Kim, Dr. David who was personal physician, diag- on-call for her Howell, Dr. Sam and she was emphysema. nosed with exacerbation of Dr. Kim ordered that Mantooth receive two units of blood. Fif- began, complained teen minutes after the transfusion Mantooth pain severe in the left side of her chest that radiated down her left shoulder and arm and into her back. Mantooth was transferred to the congestive unit, intensive care heart asthma, where she was treated for pain. failure, and chest After she stabilized, Mantooth was Long Hospital discharged transferred to Crawford and several days subsequently diagnosed lung later. She was cancer. 28, 1998,
On October the Red Cross notified CMC that it had supplied hospital with blood that did not meet Red Cross stan-