Case Name: O'Shields vs. The State of Georgia
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1888-05-11
Citations: 81 Ga. 301
Docket Number: 
Parties: O’Shields vs. The State of Georgia.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 81
Pages: 301–302

Head Matter:
O’Shields vs. The State of Georgia.
Where, during the progress of the argument to the jury in a criminal trial, the judge stated to defendant’s counsel that he desired to step out for a little while, and asked if there were any objection, and none being made, did go out of the court-room and remained out two or three minutes, allowing the argument to go on in his absence, a new trial does not necessarily result from such action. The judge acted improperly in not suspending the trial during his absence, but no objection was made, no motion made to haye a mis trial declared in consequence of his action, and it is not pretended that any harm resulted to defendant because of it.
May 11, 1888.
Practice in superior court. Before Judge Eain. Bartow superior court. January term, 1887.
Reported in the decision.
Graham & Graham, for plaintiff in error.
J. W. Harris, Jr., solicitor-general, by Robt. B. Trippe, for the State.

Opinion:
Blandeord, Justice.
It is not contended that the defendant is not guilty under the evidence. The main ground of error relied upon is the temporary absence of the judge from the court-room during the progress of the trial. It appears that the judge stated to counsel for the defendant that he desired to step out a little while, and asked if counsel had any objection ; he replied that he had none; the judge went out and was absent but two or three minutes. It does not appear that anything happened in his absence to the prejudice of the defendant. No objection was made and no motion was submitted to the court asking that a mistrial be declared in consequence of this action of the judge. We think that the court acted improperly in not suspending the trial during his absence; but as it does not appear that any harm came to the accused because of this irregularity (and none is pretended to have resulted to him on account of it), it is not a good ground for a new trial, under the circumstances of this case. We affirm the judgment of the court below refusing a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.