Case Name: Pledger v. The State
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1952-07-11
Citations: 86 Ga. App. 475
Docket Number: 34142
Parties: Pledger v. The State.
Judges: Gardner, P.J., and Townsend, J., concur.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 86
Pages: 475–475

Head Matter:
34142.
Pledger v. The State.
Decided July 11, 1952.
Orrin Roberts, for plaintiff in error.
D. M. Pollock, Solicitor-General, contra.
Z. 0. Pledger was indicted for an assault with intent to murder Willie Lee Kelly, but upon the trial was found guilty of stabbing him. The defendant’s motion for a new trial, based upon the usual general grounds and one special ground, was overruled and he excepted.
In his brief, on appeal to this court, counsel for the defendant expressly abandoned all assignments of error except that contained in the one special ground to the effect that the trial court erred in reproving a witness for the defendant during the following examination of that witness as to the reputation of the prosecuting witness:
“Q. Do you know the prosecutor Willie Lee [Kelly] ? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long have you known him? A. He was raised on my place. Q. Is he a son-in-law of Marion [another witness for the defendant] ? A. Yes, sir, he married Marion’s wife’s daughter. Q. Do you know his reputation for peace or violence? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is it good or bad? A. About the worst I have ever known. The Court: Mr. Dally [the witness], just answer the questions and don’t volunteer anything. Q. Is it good or bad? A. Pretty bad.”

Opinion:
Carlisle, J.
Where, in a criminal trial, during the examination of a witness for the defendant as to the prosecuting witness' reputation for peace or violence, the trial court, ex mero motu, admonished the witness to give only answers responsive to the questions asked by counsel for the defendant and not to volunteer information, such action on the part of the court, whether or not the admonition can be said to have prejudiced the defendant's rights, is not ground for the grant of a new trial by this court where it appears from an examination of the motion for a new trial that no objection was interposed or motion for mistrial made by defendant or his counsel at the time of the occurrence. Pulliam v. State, 196 Ga. 782, 790, 791 (6) (28 S. E. 2d, 139); Simmons v. State, 79 Ga. App. 390, 409 (5) (53 S. E. 2d, 772); and see Daniel v. Etheredge, 198 Ga. 191 (15) (31 S. E. 2d, 181), and cases there cited.
Judgment affirmed.
Gardner, P.J., and Townsend, J., concur.