*1 inability Because the mother’s to attend the the nat- voluntary consequence actions, ural of her own continuance was (1) justified. App. 904, Jones, Curtis 615) (1982). Moreover, we know of no constitutional entitlement mandating personally proceedings appear in civil under Adoption Quenette, 619, such circumstances. Accord 341 NW2d (N.D. 1983). (4) seeking Nor did mother a continuance sat- evidentiary isfy showing diligence. her burden due 9-10- 568) Stanley 166; Amos, see (1949). Accordingly, manifestly find clearly refusing abuse its discretion in to continue the case. Id. at 300. Blackburn, J., concur. Bazemore, Darden,
Darden & Gustinella, Richard M. Thomas J. Moyers, S. for Andrea Attorney Joy, Bowers, General, J.
Michael William C. Senior Attorney Sgrosso, Attorney General, Assistant Shalen A. Assistant General, Lewis, Beckmann, Jr., Beckmann Leo G. for THE
A96A1934. WILSON v. STATE. Judge. Blackburn, Following jury Theopulas trial, Jerome Wilson was convicted of trafficking appeal, argues in cocaine. On Wilson that the trial court overruling contending mistrial, erred in his motion for that State’s improperly witness trial. introduced evidence of his character stopped speeding 22, On October Wilson’svehicle was for a County Deputy violation Terrell Sheriff Eddie Fairbanks. Because produce upon request, Dep- Wilson was unable his driver’s license uty computer Fairbanks conducted a check of Wilson’s license. The computer suspended. revealed that Wilson’s had license been Advis- ing point Deputy at arrest, Wilson this that he was under permission asked received to search Wilson’scar. Cocaine was passenger compartment discovered in the and trunk of Wilson’s car. Deputy Fairbanks testified that he and other officers found a black tote in the trunk of car. Wilson’s Inside was a mailing envelope containing pros- brown cocaine. When bag identifying ecutor if he had found inside the black tote affirmatively, responded and testi- Wilson’s, Fairbanks card had been found it as fied that a bag. in the tote response objected mistrial, for a contend- to this moved impermissibly counsel placed ing into evi- character had been cura- trial court overruled the motion dence. The proceeding case, counsel with the and Wilson’s instruction before *2 objection. preserved his passing court a in on motions
“The trial has broad discretion not be appellate ruling courts will disturbed the and its appears a of discretion it there has been manifest abuse that preservation right to a the of the that mistrial is essential to and a ground inad- is made on the of trial. a motion mistrial fair Where jury, being placed the the corrective measure missible matters to be taken before largely discretion, the court is a matter of trial also no taken there is corrective measures are and where grant a is not error.” discretion, the refusal to mistrial abuse (Citations that omitted.) App. punctuation State, v. 200 Edwards Ga. (408 (1991). 580, 582 SE2d prison the discovered the I.D. card contemporaneous of his vehi- course of cle. Wilson does evidence is arrest and the search dispute not he to the search. ‘Where that consented merely objectionable material, it relevant and is not incidentally put prejudicial its is the or because effect because omitted.) (Punctuation State, State, Sims character in issue.” defendant’s 783) (1986). App. See Pemberton v. 233) (1996) (officer’s testimony App. that Ga. Clayton County Jail detained in the defendant was found give light the curative merit in trial court’s decision to mistrial instructions). surrounding are “All an arrest admis- (Punctua- place the on them.” sible for value desires to whatever omitted.) Coney State, tion 304) (1991). necessarily to a I.D. does infer that the Reference card Many prisoner. employees, is vendors and other non- holder prisoner personnel However, if the testi- are issued I.D. cards. even mony improper, the curative instruc- had been based on trial court’s overwhelming against Wilson, tion, the evi- well as jury’s hamper question dence in did not affect the verdict or Pemberton, See a fair trial and was therefore harmless. Accordingly, supra. dis- find that the trial court did not abuse its by denying for a mistrial. Id. cretion Wilson’s motion Beasley, J.,C. con- concurs. specially. curs specially. Judge, concurring Beasley, Chief judgment majority states, because, I in the as the the cur- concur against adequate ative instruction was overwhelming. and the evidence Wilson was testimony “prison” However, that card in defendant’s name was found with the contraband in the in why his vehicle was not is a cura- admissible lengthy after a with discussion counsel. employed officer, The certified law enforcement who had been years, law enforcement for six on direct whether found being any way in the “that identified it as connected in responded: I ‘Yes, the Defendant.” He sir. a ID card, found ground ID card inside.” Defendant moved for a mistrial on the put defendant’s character had been (b). in evidence. See OCGA 24-9-20 surrounding itWhile is true that circumstances an arrest are prejudicial admissible and that evidence and evidence which inciden- tally puts a defendant’s character in issue are admissible if relevant by prison material, the fact that the I.D. card was one issued necessary. relevant, material, was not the outset of As the trial court asked at presence motion, on outside of the *3 jury, “Why just say, was the witness not to instructed T found an ID ” provides: card,’ instead of T found a ID card?’ 24-2-2 general parties especially “The character of the their conduct in other transactions are irrelevant matter nature of the the necessary action involves such character and renders or investigation of such conduct.” The fact that defendant had been in any jury. not relevant was issue be tried just prior recalling jury
After the discussion and instructing attorney it, the court admonished the state’s to instruct might bring the witness “that this Defendant’s charac- say.” Considering ter into cannot the involving evidence, the nature of the immediate reaction of length jury sequestered defendant, the of time the was while the cautionary decided, matter was court, just likely as if not more so that a would infer that the card prisoner employee issued to defendant as a rather than an type, outside vendor. Had it been one of the innocuous latter no doubt explanation given. such an would be Gamble, III,
Collier T. Wilbur Gamble Ferguson, Attorney, Charles M. District