Appellant's argument under the State Constitution was not raised and ruled on below and thus we do not address it. See generally Wilson v. State, 212 Ga. 157 (1) ( 91 SE2d 16) (1956) (court will not pass upon constitutionality of statute not directly and properly made below and distinctly passed on by trial court). Finally, we agree with the State that 18 USC § 922 (g) (8), cited by appellant, has absolutely no application to state civil forfeiture cases.Judgment affirmed.
Rowe v. State, 288 Ga. 136, 137 ( 464 S.E.2d 811) (1996); Williams v. State, 199 Ga. 504, 507 ( 34 S.E.2d 854) (1945). Furthermore, the trial court did not rule specifically on this constitutional challenge, Wilson v. State, 212 Ga. 157, 158 ( 91 S.E.2d 16) (1955) and appellant failed to articulate the grounds for his challenge before the trial court and this court. Wallin v. State, 248 Ga. 29, 30 ( 279 S.E.2d 687 (1981).
Santana v. Ga. Power Co., 269 Ga. 127, 129 ( 498 S.E.2d 521) (1998). See also Wilson v. State, 212 Ga. 157, 158 ( 91 S.E.2d 16) (1955). Id.
Santana v. Ga. Power Co., 269 Ga. 127, 129 (6) ( 498 S.E.2d 521) (1998). See also Wilson v. State, 212 Ga. 157, 158 (1) (a) ( 91 S.E.2d 16) (1955). For a party to include in pleadings a challenge to the constitutionality of a statute which that party has no standing to challenge does not create an "issue" of the constitutionality of the statute, and a ruling that the party lacks standing serves as no basis for review under this Court's jurisdiction over cases in which the constitutionality of a statute has been called into question.
Lawley v. State (1956) 264 Ala. 283 [ 87 So.2d 433]; Scarber v. State (1956) 226 Ark. 503 [ 291 S.W.2d 241]; Sukle v. People (1941) 107 Colo. 269 [ 111 P.2d 233]; Broyles v. Commonwealth (Ky. 1954) 267 S.W.2d 73 [47 A.L.R.2d 1252]; State v. Henry (1940) 196 La. 217 [ 198 So. 910]; State v. White (1958) 27 N.J. 158 [ 142 A.2d 65]; Bean v. State (1936) 58 Okla. Cr. 432 [ 54 P.2d 675]; Graham v. State (1957) 202 Tenn. 423 [ 304 S.W.2d 622] [prosecutor's argument]; Williams v. State (1950) 191 Tenn. 456 [ 234 S.W.2d 993] [trial court's instruction]; Coward v. Commonwealth (1935) 164 Va. 639 [ 178 S.E. 797]. See Lovely v. UnitedStates (4th Cir. 1948) 169 F.2d 386; Wilson v. State (1956) 212 Ga. 157 [ 91 S.E.2d 16]; Farrell v. People (1890) 133 Ill. 244 [24 N.E. 423]; State v. Junkins (1910) 147 Iowa 588 [126 N.W. 689]; Jacobs v. State (1913) 103 Miss. 622 [60 So. 723]; State v. Quilling (1953) 363 Mo. 1016 [ 256 S.W.2d 751]; Grandsinger v. State (1955) 161 Neb. 419 [ 73 N.W.2d 632]; State v. Conner (1955) 241 N.C. 468 [ 85 S.E.2d 584]; Liska v. State (1926) 115 Ohio St. 283 [ 152 N.E. 667]; State v. Thorne (1912) 41 Utah 414 [126 P. 286, Ann.Cas. 1915D 90]; Jones v. Commonwealth (1952) 194 Va. 273 [ 72 S.E.2d 693, 35 A.L.R.2d 761]; State v. Carroll (1937) 52 Wyo. 29 [ 69 P.2d 542]; cf. Deming v. State (1956) 235 Ind. 282 [ 133 N.E.2d 51]; Commonwealth v. Johnson (1951) 368 Pa. 139 [ 81 A.2d 569]. Contra, Sullivan v. State (1936) 47 Ariz. 224 [ 55 P.2d 312]; State v. Buttry (1939) 199 Wn. 228 [ 90 P.2d 1026]; State v. Shawen (1894) 40 W. Va. 1 [20 S.E. 873].
Where the only objection to evidence urged before the trial judge is that the evidence is "immaterial", this court will not reverse his judgment in overruling such objection. Pippin v. State, 205 Ga. 316 (6) ( 53 S.E.2d 482); Wilson v. State, 212 Ga. 157 (4) ( 91 S.E.2d 16). 2. It is contended in ground 2 that the trial judge erred in failing to charge the law of voluntary manslaughter.
CANDLER, Justice. Alton Wilson, Jr., was indicted in Lowndes County for the murder of A. C. (Dick) Walden, Jr. He has been twice convicted of that offense and on each conviction was sentenced to be electrocuted. His first conviction was reversed by this court because the solicitor-general in his argument to the jury urged them to convict him without recommendation and referred to the legal possibility of his being later paroled or pardoned. Wilson v. State, 212 Ga. 157 ( 91 S.E.2d 16). To his second conviction he moved for a new trial on the usual general grounds, and amended his motion by adding five special grounds.
Moreover, the trial court did not address any constitutional claim, and this Court will not consider the constitutionality of a statute "unless it clearly appears in the record that the point was directly and properly made in the court below and distinctly passed on by the trial judge." Wilson v. State , 212 Ga. 157, 158 (1), 91 S.E.2d 16 (1956) ; accord Brewer v. State of Ga. , 281 Ga. 283, 284 (2), 637 S.E.2d 677 (2006) ("Appellant's argument under the State Constitution was not raised and ruled on below and thus we do not address it."); Lucas v. Lucas , 273 Ga. 240, 242 (3), 539 S.E.2d 807 (2000) ("This Court will not rule on a challenge to the constitutionality of a statute unless the issue has been raised and ruled on in the trial court."). Accordingly, Leach's constitutional argument has not been preserved for appellate review.
Since the constitutionality of no statute was ruled upon by the trial court, and since we may not address questions on appeal which were not passed on by the trial court, no question as to the constitutionality of OCGA § 16-6-3 is preserved for appellate review and this court has jurisdiction of the appeal. Liles v. Still, 176 Ga. App. 65 (1) ( 335 S.E.2d 168); Security Mgmt. Co. v. King, 132 Ga. App. 618 (1) ( 208 S.E.2d 576). See also Wilson v. State, 212 Ga. 157, 158 (1a) ( 91 S.E.2d 16). 2.
No ruling was ever obtained upon the constitutional issue raised in this court and this court will not consider it. See Hogan v. Hogan, 196 Ga. 822 (1) ( 28 S.E.2d 74); Greyhound Corp. v. Clough, 211 Ga. 574 (2) ( 87 S.E.2d 387); Wilson v. State, 212 Ga. 157 (4) ( 91 S.E.2d 16); Hicks v. State, 216 Ga. 574, 576 ( 118 S.E.2d 364); Newman v. State, 239 Ga. 329, 330 ( 236 S.E.2d 673); Hudson v. Miller, 142 Ga. App. 331 (1) ( 235 S.E.2d 773). If a party urges a general objection, such as that stated here ("improper"), he must specifically show at trial wherein the question is "improper," and that specific ground is preserved for appeal. See McGahee v. State, 133 Ga. App. 964, 967 ( 213 S.E.2d 91). If this procedure is followed, each party has an opportunity to present his side as to the specific ground urged as error and the trial court, and appellate court — if appropriate, will rule on that specific ground. The different nomenclature used by defendant's counsel in the trial court and the appellate court may or may not refer to the same error, and unless each of us is relying on and ruling on the same objection, the rights of the opposing party are not preserved.