From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barrett v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Mar 8, 1976
225 S.E.2d 483 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)

Opinion

51805.

SUBMITTED FEBRUARY 2, 1976.

DECIDED MARCH 8, 1976.

Burglary. Troup Superior Court. Before Judge Jackson.

H. J. Thomas, Jr., for appellant.

William F. Lee, Jr., District Attorney, Robert H. Sullivan, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.


The defendant was convicted of burglarizing a warehouse. Held:

1. The trial court did not charge the jury on the right of the defendant not to testify. Code Ann. § 38-415 provides in part: "... The failure of a defendant to testify shall create no presumption against him, and no comment shall be made because of such failure:..." The charge as urged by the defendant would have violated the statute and would have interjected error. Linder v. State, 132 Ga. App. 624, 625 ( 208 S.E.2d 630). there was no error in failing to so charge.

2. Defendant's enumeration that the court erred in denying a motion for a new trial predicated on an affidavit by a prosecution witness stating that she lied under oath is without merit. A post trial declaration by a state's witness that his former testimony was false is not cause for a new trial. Richey v. State, 132 Ga. App. 188 ( 207 S.E.2d 672).

3. There is evidence to show that defendant without authority entered a commercial building with intent to commit theft. The conviction was authorized.

Judgment affirmed. Clark and Stolz, JJ., concur.

SUBMITTED FEBRUARY 2, 1976 — DECIDED MARCH 8, 1976.


Summaries of

Barrett v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Mar 8, 1976
225 S.E.2d 483 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)
Case details for

Barrett v. State

Case Details

Full title:BARRETT v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Mar 8, 1976

Citations

225 S.E.2d 483 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)
138 Ga. App. 26

Citing Cases

Pryor v. State

A post-trial declaration by a State witness that his former testimony was false is not cause for a new trial.…

Carroll v. State

The post-trial affidavits amount only to an attempt to impeach the state's witnesses and do not constitute…