Court Opinion

ID: 9614710
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:27:21.578767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:39.786672
License: Public Domain

Deen, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
Except for the proposition that only a statement of waiver as clear as that required in making a demand for trial shall constitute a waiver, I concur with the majority opinion. I note further that the *610trial court apparently denied the motion for discharge and acquittal on the grounds that the appellant had not complied with the OCGA § 17-7-170 requirements of placing the demand on the minutes and filing the demand when there were juries impaneled and qualified to try him; there was no mention of any waiver of the demand. In this regard, there would seem to be no need to generate an issue of waiver, where neither the state nor the trial court below was concerned about it.
Decided July 13, 1989
Rehearing denied July 31, 1989
Lane & Tucker, Alan D. Tucker, for appellant.
Richard H. Taylor, Solicitor, for appellee.