Bishop v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Brumelow v. State

    239 Ga. App. 119 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 21 times
    Finding no abuse of discretion in prohibiting counsel from questioning witness on recross-examination regarding matter beyond the scope of redirect examination

    We find no error requiring a reversal of Baxter's convictions based solely on his absence from that colloquy. See generally Bowden v. State, 202 Ga. App. 802, 803(1) ( 415 S.E.2d 527) (1992) (physical precedent) *see Beasley's special concurrence; Bishop v. State, 179 Ga. App. 606, 609(2) ( 347 S.E.2d 350) (1986). 8. Baxter complains the court erred in limiting his recross-examination of a state witness about a prior statement by the witness concerning the type of gun Baxter had possessed.

  2. Bice v. State

    212 Ga. App. 184 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 9 times

    However, the Supreme Court transferred the case back to this court, and from that transfer we conclude that we have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See Bishop v. State, 179 Ga. App. 606 (1) ( 347 S.E.2d 350) (1986). 1. The transcript from the plea hearing reflects that at the call of appellant's case, the prosecutor announced that there would be a non-negotiated plea in the case and that appellant was represented by counsel.

  3. Giles v. State

    197 Ga. App. 895 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 4 times

    From this, we conclude that Giles' constitutional challenges which were within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction are without merit. Bishop v. State, 179 Ga. App. 606, 608 (1) ( 347 S.E.2d 350) (1986). In his argument of the enumerated error, Giles also challenges one of the affidavits in support of the 15 U.S.C. ยง 1116 (d) (1) (A) order by citing a subsequent allegedly inconsistent affidavit by the same affiant, the content of the order, and the extent of the search pursuant to it.

  4. State v. Gorwell

    339 Md. 203 (Md. 1995)   Cited 9 times
    Indicating there was "manifest necessity" for the trial judge to declare a mistrial when a previously impanelled juror was dismissed for cause and one party refused to proceed with a panel of less than 12 jurors

    State v. Romeo, 43 N.J. 188, 203 A.2d 23, 29 (1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 970, 85 S.Ct. 668, 13 L.Ed.2d 563. See also Bishop v. State, 179 Ga. App. 606, 347 S.E.2d 350, 352 (1986) (where jury is deprived of the statutory minimum number by the proper removal of a juror, there is manifest necessity for a mistrial); State v. McFerron, 52 Or. App. 325, 628 P.2d 440, 443 (1981) (State may not be required to proceed with less than 12 jurors). There is no requirement that the trial judge agree with the State's decision to decline to continue with 11 jurors or, where reasons are given by the State, that the trial judge agree with those reasons.