From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Askew v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Apr 2, 1968
161 S.E.2d 445 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968)

Opinion

43429.

ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 1968.

DECIDED APRIL 2, 1968. REHEARING DENIED APRIL 18, 1968.

Burglary. Carroll Superior Court. Before Judge Knight.

A. B. Parker, Howe Murphy, Harold L. Murphy, for appellant.

Wright Lipford, Solicitor General, for appellee.


1. The brief filed by the appellant in this case does not meet the requirements of Rule 17 (a) (1) and Rule 17 (c) (3) (A) and Rule 17 (c) (3) (B) of this court adopted by it on July 21, 1965, and effective August 1, 1965, in that there is no citation or reference to the record or transcript. Accordingly, under the decisions of the court in Strickland v. English, 115 Ga. App. 384 (2) ( 154 S.E.2d 710) and Crider v. State of Ga., 115 Ga. App. 347 (1) ( 154 S.E.2d 743) the enumerations of error for which there is no reference made in either the enumeration or the brief will be considered as abandoned.

2. Paragraph (a) of Section 17 of the Appellate Practice Act of 1965, as amended by Section 6 of the Act of 1966 (Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18, 31; Ga. L. 1966, pp. 493, 498; Code Ann. § 70-207), reads: "Except as otherwise provided in this section, in all cases, no party may complain of the giving or the failure to give an instruction to the jury unless he objects thereto before the jury returns its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection. Opportunity shall be given to make the objection out of the hearing of the jury, and objection need not be made with the particularity of assignments of error (abolished by this Act) and need only be as reasonably definite as the circumstances will permit." The record in the present case does not disclose that the appellant made any objection pursuant to the requirements of the above section as to the giving and the failure to give the charges complained of. The requirements of Par. (c) of Sec. 17 not having been met, these alleged errors, therefore, present no question for review. See Strong v. Palmour, 113 Ga. App. 750 ( 149 S.E.2d 745); King v. Adams, 113 Ga. App. 708 ( 149 S.E.2d 548); Vogt v. Rice, 114 Ga. App. 251 ( 150 S.E.2d 691); Saint v. Ryan, 114 Ga. App. 489 ( 151 S.E.2d 826). Section 10 of the Act approved March 30, 1967 (Ga. L. 1967, pp. 220, 225) purporting to amend the above section so that it would apply only to civil cases was rendered unconstitutional under the decision of the Supreme Court in Joiner v. State, 223 Ga. 367 ( 155 S.E.2d 8).

3. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict. The trial court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed. Jordan, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.

ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 1968 — DECIDED APRIL 2, 1968 — REHEARING DENIED APRIL 18, 1968 — CERT. APPLIED FOR.


Summaries of

Askew v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Apr 2, 1968
161 S.E.2d 445 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968)
Case details for

Askew v. State

Case Details

Full title:ASKEW v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Apr 2, 1968

Citations

161 S.E.2d 445 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968)
161 S.E.2d 445

Citing Cases

Sturgis v. State

We deem this complaint to be abandoned by reason of the failure to properly argue this enumeration of error…

Jester v. State

(3) In refusing to grant the defendant a new trial. 1. Every appellant is required to assist the appellate…