*1 34387. SCOTT v. THE STATE. Justice.
Bowles, Appellant was found guilty of murder Spalding Superior Court on January 26,1976, and was sentenced to imprisonment. life He was granted an out-of-time appeal two errors.
1. Appellant complains that refused, the trial court upon motion, him a grant on separate hearing voluntariness of a written confession introduced into evidence. He complains the trial neglected court to make a ruling as to the confession, of the and failed to give proper cautionary jury instruction to the on using the statement for impeachment purposes.
The statement of the defendant offered into evidence
was offered only for the purpose
In these
circumstances
a separate hearing on voluntariness
statement
as determined in
Denno,
Jackson v.
378 U. S.
(84
1774,
SC
(1964),
is not required.
Compare,
Harris v.
The burden is on the court jury to caution the evidence is be considered purpose to. assessing defendant’s credibility not to establish his guilt of the offense for which he is on trial. Failure on the part of the trial court to so instruct could be error. jury However, under the facts in this case, conclude that we possible did error not harm appellant. He testified at trial in his own behalf and affirmed the statement he gave to the police officer voluntarily made. In addition to a very case, state’s strong testified that he shot the victim several times a pistol with while the victim in bed lay with covers over his head. No legal justification was offered for his conduct. this we cannot say appellant was harmed the trial court’s failure to give precautionary instructions to the jury regarding purpose which the evidence was Zirkle v. See, introduced.
389) (1975). United States v. Agurs, 2392, 49 LE2d the court the failure of Appellant assigns as error him the grant 27-2201, to have § Ann. and claims under Code
arguments recognize rights While we prejudiced thereby. rights valuable are closing arguments *2 law, there are accused, must be under the protected be contention cannot why several reasons appellant’s sustained here. and close is open is entitled to party
Which any or not unclear, on whether oftentimes based evidence has been testimony documentary admissible or in this It beyond question introduced the accused. is or testimony accused offers no state that where an a than his own evidence into the trial of testimony, right he has the for further instance, In this the accused called arguments. in testified had theretofore testimony witness who extent of the witness’ Although behalf of the state. the invoke limited, did not testimony appellant was him cross to further permit from the court to ruling Thus, the the after the state had closed. examine witness appellant have concluded that court could well witness, he had a the witness as his own which calling who, case after the to do. "A defendant right has been prosecution of a witness testimony the witness concluded and the witness has retired from stand, witness, not entitled to calls and examines the is unless, the for some reason open argument, conclude court, he has addressed to the discretion of granted further order permission questions ask Dunn v. complete the cross examination of the witness.” 170) 95 SE followed App. (1937). 383 SE App. Jefferson would have When the court announced that state made no closing arguments, the first time on objection, the error for he A cannot the trial what appeal. party during ignore favorable thinks to be an take his chances on a injustice, State, 233 later. Ellard v. 640 verdict, and Ga. complain Out of this evolves principle trial objected further that matters not premise be Mallory appeal. raised for first time on (1973). State, When an made, is improper argument whether substantive or procedural, a opposing duty counsel has to act by Gerdine v. interposing objection. 128) (1975). Ga. App. where the in a Additionally, evidence criminal case demands a verdict guilty, the fact that was improperly deprived open conclude the argument a new trial. Fader v. not will necessitate (1925). Ga. Judgment concur, All the Justices except affirmed. Hill, J., who concurs specially. January February Submitted Decided Mostiler, Johnny B. for appellant. Lindberg
Calvin Scott, pro se. Caldwell, Jr., Johnnie L. District J. Attorney, David *3 Fowler, Bolton, Assistant District Arthur K. Attorney, General, Dunsmore, Jr., Attorney John W. Assistant General, Attorney for appellee. Justice, concurring specially.
Hill, I with all that is agree said Division 1. The (or majority no say separate hearing judicial determination) on the confession is required where the confession is offered for purposes of impeachment. words, In majority say an involuntary confession may purposes be used for this proposition, they For cite Harris its In supra, progeny Georgia. Mincey Arizona,
the Harris limited to rule was Miranda violations. (in Mincey trial), the court held that use even use solely impeachment, involuntary statement, process. violates due 437 U.S.
Here, however, admitted while had made testifying his confession I therefore concur voluntarily. judgment.