Court Opinion

ID: 9569948
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:18:48.437507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:22.062914
License: Public Domain

Pope, Senior Appellate Judge,
concurring and concurring specially.
I concur fully in the result reached here and I write separately to urge the Bar to review and vigilantly implement the rules for preserving trial error for appellate review. In Division 2 of the majority, the opinion concludes that Clonts waived the alleged error here because his attorney failed to renew his motion for mistrial during closing argument after the trial court gave curative instructions in response to his objection. In Division 4 (b), the opinion addresses Clonts’ argument that the prosecutor’s closing argument violated the “golden rule.” Again, the opinion notes that while Clonts’ attorney objected to the statement and the trial court sustained the objection, the attorney did not ask for curative instructions nor move for a mistrial. Thus, the opinion concludes, the trial court’s failure to sua sponte provide additional relief affords no basis for reversal.
It is well established that when a defendant objects during closing argument, he must then move for a mistrial or renew his objection in some fashion after the trial court gives curative instructions.
Where a defendant objects and moves for a mistrial during the State’s closing argument and the trial court denies the motion but takes some corrective action, if the defendant is dissatisfied with that action, he must renew the objection or motion; otherwise, the issue is waived.
(Citation, punctuation and footnote omitted.) Stone v. State, 257 Ga. App. 306, 309 (1) (570 SE2d 715) (2002). See also Wells v. State, 243 Ga. App. 629, 631 (3) (534 SE2d 106) (2000); see generally Minnix v. State, 162 Ga. App. 29, 31 (2) (290 SE2d 131) (1982); Jackson v. State, 248 Ga. 480, 483 (2) (284 SE2d 267) (1981); Prophet v. State, 158 Ga. App. 578 (2) (281 SE2d 321) (1981); Burgess v. State, 149 Ga. App. 630, 631 (1) (255 SE2d 100) (1979).
*150Decided December 23, 2002
Reconsideration denied March 11,2003
Garland, Samuel & Loeb, Donald F. Samuel, William C. Lea, for appellant.
James R. Osborne, District Attorney, Theo M. Sereebutra, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Despite the many cases in which this principle is stated, cases in which counsel fails to follow these rules, thus waiving any potential appeal of the argument, are common. Accordingly, I strongly urge members of the Bar to review the rules regarding preserving error for appellate review. And, because these mistakes are distressingly common, I think that the Bar should work toward ameliorating this recurrent situation.
I am authorized to state that Judge Barnes joins in this special concurrence.