Court Opinion

ID: 9539539
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:05:42.451937+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:56.131676
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
concurring specially.
I agree with the majority. In my opinion there was a waiver. Trial procedure rules and due process recognize that perfection in the con*171duct of a trial cannot be the required standard. A number of mechanisms are provided for correcting errors during trial which, if used properly, will satisfy the goal of a fair and impartial trial and conclude it without retrial.
So, for example, inadmissible evidence can be stricken from the factfinder’s consideration. See Fudge v. State, 164 Ga. App. 392 (297 SE2d 329) (1982). An attorney’s misstatements can be corrected by the court, and counsel can even be reprimanded for wrongful argument in the presence of the jury. See OCGA § 17-8-75; London v. State, 142 Ga. App. 426 (236 SE2d 158) (1977); Fudge v. State, supra. The harmless error rules also acknowledge the degree to which a trial must reach the ultimate. Johnson v. State, 238 Ga. 59, 61 (230 SE2d 869) (1976); Harrington v. California, 395 U. S. 250 (89 SC 1726, 23 LE2d 284 (1969).
The mechanism for correcting erroneous charges is focused on here. By it, the parties are given an opportunity not only to submit requested charges to the court before it instructs the jury, but also to ask for revision of the charge immediately after it is given, when error is noted about which the party may have an objection. The object of this mechanism, of course, is to bring to the attention of the court that the party is dissatisfied with the instructions to the jury with respect to the law to be applied, and to correct the instruction if in fact it was erroneous. Correcting the charge thus immediately rectifies the wrong, before the jury begins deliberations, and gives the objecting party instant relief. The trial, which the parties and the court and the jury have labored over and has now reached the stage when the jury will labor more intensely, is thus saved from reversal and repetition.
To allow the language used by counsel in this case to preserve the right to make objections to the charge long after the jury has reached its verdict and the case is over, in effect eliminates this mechanism of adjustment. It will permit counsel to choose to not even listen carefully to the charge but simply wait to pore over it at a later time when the damage cannot be undone except by way of a new trial. It prevents correction at the time when counsel has a full opportunity to hear and consider the charge and object to it.
This particular mechanism for correcting errors as the trial progresses is being removed and a greater degree of original perfection is being imposed, requiring even the most careful judge not to fumble with a slip of the tongue. For counsel to simply say “at this time” I have no objections to what has been charged to the jury, in response to the court’s inquiry and invitation, allows avoidance of the shared responsibility to assure that the jury is properly instructed, to the extent of defendant’s rights in the matter. Counsel will simply be permitted to side-step the issue.
*172Nor do I believe the slip of the tongue was harmful here. Apparently the jury was not confused about it because it did not ask for further instructions. If it had even thought about it, it would realize the inconsistency with the beginning instructions and so probably ask for clarification. But it did not indicate that it was confused.
Here the error was not contained in the lengthy charge focusing the jury’s attention on the subject of the burden of proof, which charge fully and correctly dealt with that subject. Rather the error was made in a peripheral way, in the context of a procedural and mechanical aspect, when the focus was on the verdict form.