TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Rutledge v. State

Rutledge v. the State

Rutledge v. State, 264 S.E.2d 248 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 5, 1979
Docket
No. 58834
Judges
Birdsong, Quillian, Smith
Citations
264 S.E.2d 248152 Ga. App. 8491979 Ga. App. LEXIS 3104

Opinion — Birdsong

Birdsong, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for aggravated assault in Carroll County. The offense arose out of an incident which also formed the basis for his conviction in a separate trial for the offenses of violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act and aggravated assault. In this appeal, Rutledge enumerates three alleged errors by the trial court, two of which raise issues identical to those we disposed of contrary to his contentions in Divisions 2 and 5 of this court’s opinion in Rutledge v. State, 152 Ga. App. 755 , and which are dispositive of these two enumerations in this case. In his remaining enumeration, appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for continuance which he made on the basis that the jurors in the second trial had commingled with jurors who had the previous day convicted appellant for the other offenses, thereby prejudicing appellant’s cause. We find no merit in this allegation. The objection made by the appellant addressed the qualification of each juror, and is fully met by the questions and answers on voir dire.

Humphries v. State, 100 Ga. 260, 261-62 ( 28 SE 25 );

Edge v. State, 8 Ga. App. 125 ( 68 SE 623 ); see also Bradberry v. State, 170 Ga. 870 ( 154 SE 351 ). The jurors in this case were either qualified on voir dire as being without prejudice against the appellant or were not questioned by the appellant. The trial judge was as a matter of fact fully satisfied that there was no actual prejudice against the appellant among the jurors, for any reason, and so are we.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

*850 Submitted November 19,1979 — Decided December 5, 1979 — Rehearing denied December 20, 1979.

Andrew S. Murphy, Alton T. Milam, for appellant.

William F. Lee, Jr., District Attorney, Michael G. Kam, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1980: 11983: 11986: 119802026peak 1980 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Harper430 So. 2d 627 (La. 1983)
  2. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Pinyan270 S.E.2d 883 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)
  3. Bonner v. State348 S.E.2d 903 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)

Most recent

  1. Bonner v. State348 S.E.2d 903 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)
  2. State v. Harper430 So. 2d 627 (La. 1983)
  3. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Pinyan270 S.E.2d 883 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Humphries v. State, 28 S.E. 25 (Ga. 1897) 37
Bradberry v. State, 154 S.E. 351 (Ga. 1930) 5
Edge v. State, 68 S.E. 623 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910) 2
Rutledge v. State, 264 S.E.2d 244 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979) 18

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list