GA Code § 17-8-1 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 17 - Criminal Procedure|Chapter 8 - Trial|Article 1 - General Provisions|§ 17-8-1. Cases to Be Called in Order in Which They Stand on Docket; Exceptions; Preferred Scheduling When Alleged Victim Is Disabled Adult or Elder Person

  The cases on the criminal docket shall be called in the order in which they stand on the docket unless the accused is in jail or, otherwise, in the sound discretion of the court.     As used in this Code section, the terms "disabled adult" and "elder person" shall have the same meaning as set forth in Code Section 16-5-100.   When the alleged victim is a disabled adult or elder person, the prosecuting attorney shall notify the accused if it intends to seek preferred scheduling. The notice shall be in writing and shall:   Allege the specific factor or factors that will inhibit a disabled adult from attending or participating in court proceedings if he or she is a disabled adult; or   State the age of the alleged victim if he or she is an elder person.     When notice has been given pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subsection, the court shall set a date for a hearing on the issue within 14 days after the filing of such notice. The court shall consider the matter and if the court determines that preferred scheduling is necessary, the trial shall not be:   Subject to subsection (a) of this Code section; and   Earlier than 30 days from the date of the hearing.        (Ga. L. 1862-63, p. 139, § 1; Code 1863, § 4592; Code 1868, § 4613; Code 1873, § 4710; Code 1882, § 4710; Penal Code 1895, § 942; Penal Code 1910, § 967; Code 1933, § 27-1301; Ga. L. 2015, p. 598, § 1-5/HB 72.)   Law reviews.   - For article on the 2015 amendment of this Code section, see 32 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 63 (2015).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS    This section was directory, not mandatory. Rosenbrook v. State, 78 Ga. 111 (1886); Merrill v. State, 130 Ga. App. 745, 204 S.E.2d 632 (1974); Williams v. State, 188 Ga. App. 496, 373 S.E.2d 281 (1988).    Defendant was entitled to have case called in the proper order. In re Brookins, 153 Ga. App. 82, 264 S.E.2d 560 (1980).    Although the cases on the criminal docket shall be called in the order in which the cases stand on the docket, a trial court retains discretion to call the cases out of order; there was no error in calling the defendant's case for trial, despite the fact that another pending matter had been pending longer on the trial court's docket, because the defendant in the other case was expected to enter a plea following the sentencing in another matter. Kuykendoll v. State, 278 Ga. App. 369, 629 S.E.2d 32 (2006).   Injury resulting from change in order must be shown.    - Before a party can be heard to object to the order in which the court proceeds, the party must show injury to oneself resulting from the act of the court. Rosenbrook v. State, 78 Ga. 111 (1886); Lister v. State, 143 Ga. App. 483, 238 S.E.2d 591 (1977).    Trial court did not err by calling a case out of the order listed on the trial calendar when both the prosecuting attorney and defense counsel announced that they were ready for trial and the defendant was not prejudiced by the case being called out of order. Wilkins v. State, 246 Ga. App. 667, 541 S.E.2d 458 (2000).   Grant or denial of continuance in court's discretion.    - Grant or denial of a continuance to a criminal defendant is in the sound discretion of the court, especially when the defendant is in jail. Gann v. State, 166 Ga. App. 172, 303 S.E.2d 510 (1983).    Allowing the district attorney to call cases out of the order listed on the criminal trial calendar was an abuse of discretion. Cuzzort v. State, 271 Ga. 464, 519 S.E.2d 687 (1999).    Defendant was not entitled to reversal of the defendant's conviction on the basis of an illegal case assignment system pursuant to which the district attorney called the case for trial, and assigned the case to a judge since the case assignment system was not unconstitutional and it was highly improbable that the assignment contributed to the jury's verdict. State v. Wooten, 273 Ga. 529, 543 S.E.2d 721 (2001).   Defendant's case called before others with lower docket numbers.    - When neither injury nor abuse of sound discretion are shown, the trial judge does not err in ruling against a defendant's motion for continuance on the ground that the defendant's case was called for trial prior to another case having a lower number on the docket. Merrill v. State, 130 Ga. App. 745, 204 S.E.2d 632 (1974).   "Speedy trial demand" cases.    - Rule does not prohibit a local policy moving a "speedy trial demand" case to the top of a calendar; in fact, such a policy is only common sense and designed to accommodate the demand of the accused. Culliver v. State, 247 Ga. App. 877, 545 S.E.2d 392 (2001).   Prejudice from sounding several indictments against same defendant all at once.    - Frequently, when several indictments are pending against the same defendant, the indictments are all sounded on the call of the docket in the hearing of the jurors who are assembled in the courtroom to try those and other cases on the calendar. This may be somewhat prejudicial to such defendants, but it is, nevertheless, the only proper and expedient method of sounding out the docket. It is no more prejudicial when another indictment is publicized to the jurors through error, than in the manner pointed out first, and to hold such conduct to be prejudicial would reflect on the authority of the trial court to call the docket as required by this section. Dye v. State, 77 Ga. App. 517, 48 S.E.2d 742 (1948).    There was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying the motion for a mistrial or disqualifying the jurors after the prosecutor apparently read the criminal calendar in the presence of the panel of potential jurors prior to commencement of trial, which calendar allegedly contained three felony charges against the defendant, who moved for a mistrial on the ground that it placed the defendant's character in issue and made it impossible to obtain jurors who had not heard the prejudicial information about the defendant and, in the alternative, asked that all jurors present when the calendar was read be disqualified. Anderson v. State, 165 Ga. App. 885, 303 S.E.2d 57 (1983), rev'd on other grounds, 252 Ga. 103, 312 S.E.2d 113 (1984).   Arraigning for different offenses at same time.    - This section did not vest in the solicitor general (now district attorney) the right to arraign a defendant, read to the defendant the indictment against the defendant, require the defendant to plead thereto, and upon receiving the defendant's plea of not guilty, proceed further to read two more indictments against the defendant involving different offenses, and receive pleas of guilty or not guilty thereto. Sides v. State, 213 Ga. 482, 99 S.E.2d 884 (1957).   Dismissal of continued case when state unprepared.    - When a criminal case was called for trial, the court granted the state's motion for continuance and the state was placed on terms, the case was then reset for trial, and the state was not ready to try the case on that date, the court properly dismissed the charges against the defendant. State v. Grimes, 194 Ga. App. 736, 392 S.E.2d 727 (1990).   Sufficiency of harm.    - Failure to try the defendant's case in the order in which the case appeared on the trial calendar resulting in the loss of contact with a witness who possessed exculpatory testimony provided an insufficient showing of harm since the content of the witness' expected testimony was never revealed. State v. Jessup, 187 Ga. App. 429, 370 S.E.2d 489 (1988).   Forfeiture of bail bond.    - Bail bond was properly forfeited for nonappearance even though the defendant's case was called out of order on the trial calendar. Taylor v. State, 194 Ga. App. 245, 390 S.E.2d 601 (1990).    Cited in Barrentine v. State, 136 Ga. App. 802, 222 S.E.2d 103 (1975); Arnsdorff v. State, 152 Ga. App. 515, 263 S.E.2d 176 (1979); Garner v. State, 159 Ga. App. 244, 282 S.E.2d 909 (1981); Ramsey v. State, 169 Ga. App. 920, 315 S.E.2d 472 (1984); State v. Finkelstein, 170 Ga. App. 608, 317 S.E.2d 648 (1984).