Sorrow v. State, 32 Ga. App. 504

Luke, J.

’ 1. That the court while charging the jury entered, into a colloquy with ‍‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‍the solicitor-general and counsel for the defendant and made statements which amounted to an expression of opinion as to the facts of the case does not require a reversal of ‍‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‍the judgment below, since the court, immediately after making the statements complained of, explicitly instructed the jury not to consider them. Furthermore, counsel for the plaintiff in error, having ‍‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‍failed to make a motion for a mistrial, cannot, after the conviction of his client, raise in a motion for a new trial the question as to the prejudicial ‍‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‍nature of the remarks complained of. Perdue v. State, 135 Ga. 277 (69 S. E. 184).

2. The genei’al grounds of the motion for a new trial, not being referred to in the brief of counsel for ‍‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‍the plaintiff in error, are treated as abandoned.

Judgment ■affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Sorrow v. State

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date Published: Jul 15, 1924

Citations: 32 Ga. App. 504; 123 S.E. 914; 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 511; 15641

Docket Number: 15641

Court Abbreviation: Ga. Ct. App.