Case Name: CLARK v. THE STATE
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1982-02-16
Citations: 249 Ga. 18
Docket Number: 37854
Parties: CLARK v. THE STATE.
Judges: All the Justices concur, except Weltner, J., who concurs specially.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 249
Pages: 18–19

Head Matter:
37854.
CLARK v. THE STATE.
Decided February 16, 1982.
W. P. Johnson, Sam D. Price, for appellant.
Arthur E. Mallory III, District Attorney, Harger W. Hoyt, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Opinion:
Per curiam.
We granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' holding that Cooper v. State, 182 Ga. 42 (2) (184 SE 716) (1936), authorized the introduction of appellant's "mug shot" notwithstanding that it was captioned "Police Department, Carrollton, Georgia" and contained a date that preceded the date of the offense for which appellant was on trial. See Clark v. State, 159 Ga. App. 136 (282 SE2d 752) (1981).
The record, however, reveals that the only ground of objection raised at trial related to the mug shot being part of an "impermissibly suggestive" photographic display. Such an objection does not raise the issue presented in the application for certiorari, i.e., whether the photograph impermissibly placed appellant's character into issue.
It is well settled that "[g]rounds which may be considered on appeal are [generally] limited to those which were urged before the trial court. Kitchens v. State, 228 Ga. 624 (1) (187 SE2d 268) (1972)." Kingston v. State, 127 Ga. App. 660, 661 (194 SE2d 675) (1972). We find no basis for departing from this principle in the instant case. See United States v. Fosher, 568 F2d 207, 214 (5th Cir. 1978). The criteria for the grant of certiorari not being satisfied, the writ is hereby vacated.
Writ of certiorari vacated.
All the Justices concur, except Weltner, J., who concurs specially.