Wright v. State

5 Citing cases

  1. Stevens v. State

    247 Ga. 698 (Ga. 1981)   Cited 74 times

    [Cits.]" Wright v. State, 223 Ga. 849 ( 159 S.E.2d 76) (1968). See Tucker v. State, supra.

  2. High v. State

    247 Ga. 289 (Ga. 1981)   Cited 44 times

    It is clear from the record that the trial judge was not expressing an opinion but ruling upon the motion which had been made by the appellant. Wright v. State, 223 Ga. 849 ( 159 S.E.2d 76) (1968). See Tucker v. State, 245 Ga. 68 ( 263 S.E.2d 109) (1980); Whisman v. State, 221 Ga. 460 ( 145 S.E.2d 499) (1965).

  3. Tucker v. State

    245 Ga. 68 (Ga. 1980)   Cited 53 times
    In Tucker we concluded that the inference created by the above-quoted charge "does not `undermine the factfinder's responsibility at trial, based on evidence adduced by the State, to find the ultimate facts beyond a reasonable doubt.' Rather it leaves the trier of fact `free to credit or reject the inference and does not shift the burden of proof...'"

    No error is shown by this enumeration of error. Wright v. State, 223 Ga. 849 ( 159 S.E.2d 76) (1968); Green v. State, 112 Ga. App. 329 (1) ( 145 S.E.2d 80) (1965) and Bradley v. State, 137 Ga. App. 670 (8) ( 224 S.E.2d 778) (1976). 5. The eighth enumeration of error contends that the trial court erred in charging: "Malice may be implied where no considerable provocation appears and where all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned or malignant heart.

  4. Stewart v. State

    165 Ga. App. 62 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 14 times
    In Stewart v. State, 165 Ga. App. 62, 299 S.E.2d 134, 136 (1983), the Georgia Court of Appeals considered the reliability of the Auto-Intoximeter, the machine here under consideration, and admitted the results of tests conducted on that machine.

    "(I)t is not error for the prosecutor to reflect upon the failure of the defense to present any evidence to rebut the proof adduced by the state." Brown v. State, 157 Ga. App. 473, 476 ( 278 S.E.2d 31). Furthermore, "[it is] not error for the trial judge to refer to the testimony [or lack thereof] in deciding the objections raised in [the] case" ( Wright v. State, 223 Ga. 849 ( 159 S.E.2d 76)), where the reference is "merely a statement by the judge that there was no evidence of a certain thing" ( Fair v. State, 171 Ga. 112, 120 ( 155 S.E. 329)), and does not comment directly on the defendant's failure to testify. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for mistrial. Brown, supra.

  5. Miller v. State

    177 S.E.2d 838 (Ga. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 19 times

    Peters v. State, 72 Ga. App. 157 (2) ( 33 S.E.2d 454). See Hatcher v. State, 8 Ga. App. 673 ( 70 S.E. 43); Moon v. State, 120 Ga. App. 141, 146 ( 169 S.E.2d 632); Wright v. State, 223 Ga. 849 ( 159 S.E.2d 76); Pritchard v. State, 225 Ga. 690 (1, 2) ( 171 S.E.2d 130). Moreover, the defendant neither moved for a mistrial nor offered objection to the alleged improper comment.