Bell v. State

7 Citing cases

  1. Alatise v. State

    291 Ga. 428 (Ga. 2012)   Cited 15 times
    Pretermitting whether the defendant met his burden with regard to the first and second prongs of the Kelly test, yet determining that plain error under Kelly test was not established because the omission of a specific instruction did not affect the outcome of the trial proceedings, where a review of the charge in its entirety showed that any error in the omission of a specific charge was harmless

    “ ‘Where a witness for the State in a criminal case voluntarily injects into the trial improper and prejudicial matter, on motion for a mistrial based thereon, whether mistrial must be granted as the only corrective measure or whether the prejudicial effect can be corrected by withdrawing testimony from the consideration of the jury under proper instructions, is a matter ordinarily in the discretion of the trial court.’ [Cit.]” Willingham v. State, 118 Ga.App. 321, 324, 163 S.E.2d 317 (1968); Bell v. State, 159 Ga.App. 621, 622(3), 284 S.E.2d 639 (1981). The trial court's ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, which does not exist if the curative instructions given can serve to prevent the alleged harmful testimony from having any prejudicial impact and/or the jury indicates that it can follow the instructions and will not consider any improper prejudicial statements or testimony.

  2. Crawford v. State

    351 S.E.2d 199 (Ga. 1987)   Cited 30 times

    ' [Cit.]" Willingham v. State, 118 Ga. App. 321, 324 ( 163 S.E.2d 317) (1968); Bell v. State, 159 Ga. App. 621, 622 (3) ( 284 S.E.2d 639) (1981). The trial court's ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion, which does not exist if the curative instructions given can serve to prevent the alleged harmful testimony from having any prejudicial impact and/or the jury indicates that it can follow the instructions and will not consider any improper prejudicial statements or testimony.

  3. Kennedy v. State

    205 Ga. App. 152 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 25 times

    [Cit.]" Bell v. State, 159 Ga. App. 621 (3) ( 284 S.E.2d 639) (1981). Accord Carver v. State, 198 Ga. App. 254, 255 ( 401 S.E.2d 300) (1990).

  4. Dept. of Transp. v. Ultima-Trimble

    204 Ga. App. 309 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 1 times

    At one point, he testified that condemnee had been "forced ... to donate to [condemnor]" and, shortly thereafter, he testified that condemnee had been "coerced to donate ... to [condemnor]...." Condemnor then moved for a mistrial outside the presence of the jury, predicating its motion upon both references to the previous donation. Compare Bell v. State, 159 Ga. App. 621, 622 (3) ( 284 S.E.2d 639) (1981). In its motion, condemnor specifically urged that the testimony by condemnee's president as to the previous donation was irrelevant and that for condemnee's president "to interject those statements and the way they were put, [']forced['] and [']coerced,['] ... could do nothing but prejudice this jury...." Compare McCormick v. State, 152 Ga. App. 14, 15 (2) ( 262 S.E.2d 173) (1979) (non-specific objection).

  5. Neese v. State

    183 Ga. App. 773 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 2 times

    The jurors were clearly entitled to take into account the possibility that the child had been pressured into making the statements on the tapes and to make their own assessment of the motives and credibility of the witness who testified on the lack of opportunity issue. See generally Bragg v. State, 175 Ga. App. 640, 642 ( 334 S.E.2d 184) (1985); Bell v. State, 159 Ga. App. 621 ( 284 S.E.2d 639) (1981); OCGA § 24-9-80. 2.

  6. Few v. State

    356 S.E.2d 729 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987)

    Finally, he contends that the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury sua sponte that the state was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the metal pipe introduced into evidence was in fact the object used to inflict the eye injury. Held: 1. From the evidence presented, any rational trier of fact could reasonably have rejected the appellant's alibi defense and concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty as charged. Accord Bragg v. State, 175 Ga. App. 640, 642 (1) ( 334 S.E.2d 184) (1985); Bell v. State, 159 Ga. App. 621 (1) ( 284 S.E.2d 639) (1981). See generally Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560) (1979).

  7. Corbitt v. State

    315 S.E.2d 25 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 3 times

    Therefore, appellant has waived review of this issue. Bell v. State, 159 Ga. App. 621, 623 ( 284 S.E.2d 639). 4. While instructing the jury on entrapment, the trial judge quoted OCGA § 16-3-25 (Code Ann. § 26-905) but omitted the phrase "or solicited" from the first sentence. Subsequently, the jury requested a recharge on the issue of entrapment, and the trial judge concurred but included in the second charge the phrase he omitted during his initial instruction.